2026-10-07 - Committee on Public Works

00:04I don't know. I'm just asking

00:11this Wednesday, October 7th, 2026 is

00:155:33.

00:19I want to say thank you to the members

00:24of

00:27Thank you. and the solution and

00:30directors.

00:32Thank you.

00:34Good luck. Thank you for being here.

00:41>> Chairman Vargas.

00:43>> Vice Chair Sanchez is absent. Councilman

00:47Espenol

00:48>> present.

00:49>> Council Roy.

00:51>> Counciloman Vargas is absent. We have

00:53three present and two absent.

00:55>> Thank you. Can you please read number

00:58one?

00:59>> An ordinance in amendment of chapter 15

01:01of the port of ordinances of the city of

01:03Providence entitled motor vehicles and

01:06traffic as amended to add sections 15-8

01:10through 15-20 to article one in general.

01:15>> Thank you.

01:17I want to

01:20throw two letters into the record.

01:23One

01:25and the other one is from

01:47Thank you.

01:50>> So

01:54motion was taken by

01:57second by

02:00Thank you.

02:09>> You are

02:11out of wisdom. Can you please explain

02:16>> should I do it from here chairman or

02:18would you want me fine? Okay.

02:20>> Um so I want to thank uh the members of

02:23the committee for allowing me to speak

02:24on this. So this is um an ordinance that

02:28we worked uh work with province

02:30coalition on uh and it is essentially a

02:36pilot ordinance uh for no turn on red.

02:41Um, and if I may, I don't I don't

02:44actually have the current sponsors of

02:47this um legislation with

02:51you if you read that.

02:56>> Councilman Gonhouse, Council President

02:58Miller, Council Davidson, Council

03:00Peterson, Council Royce, and Council.

03:03>> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. We

03:05appreciate it. So, the the purpose of

03:07this ordinance is to make um our streets

03:09safer for pedestrians and cyclists and

03:13families that are using our streets. And

03:16there's um there's quite a lot of

03:18research about

03:20uh no right uh no no return on red and

03:25how that uh makes the situation a lot

03:28more safe for uh for people particularly

03:31in downtown locations where you have a

03:34lot of just traffic um you know people

03:37going to the mall uh and then a lot of

03:40pedestrians. Um, so again, the the goal

03:43is to prohibit right turns on red

03:47throughout downtown Providence. There

03:49are already several intersections

03:51throughout uh downtown where you're not

03:54allowed to turn right on red. So, this

03:56would basically be expanding that uh and

04:00restricting right turns on red can

04:02actually reduce uh close calls between

04:05drivers and pedestrians pretty

04:07significantly. Um so the legislation

04:10aligns with our comprehensive plan uh

04:14and uh recommendations from the green

04:16incomplete streets advisory council. Uh

04:19but most importantly the ordinance

04:21provides uh flexibility for our traffic

04:24engineer to authorize exceptions uh

04:27where safety can be demonstrated. Um,

04:30and I I want to thank a number of people

04:33who were really instrumental in in

04:36helping shepherd this um ordinance

04:39forward. Uh, particularly the um the

04:42Province Streets Coalition,

04:45Dylan Giles, as well as Liza Burkin.

04:48We've been working with them uh pretty

04:50intimately on this uh on this

04:52legislation and um asking the committee

04:56me members to consider supporting it. um

04:59[clears throat] our committee so we can

05:01go report on the full core if the

05:03province cancelled.

05:06>> Uh got a question for you. When when you

05:10say like downtown

05:14from where to where is the down like in

05:17which tree like down in the police

05:20complex down or going all the way to the

05:23state house

05:26down or going all the way to

05:29to um

05:33this uh the unifor

05:39this area here like

05:42well the the ordinance um specifically

05:45says downtown Broadway. So the entire

05:50yeah the signal intersections

05:52of downtown

05:54and and that would be based on

05:58the internal GIS maps that we have of

06:02downtown which is which is defined by

06:05our um our planning department.

06:10We have someone from the toy.

06:24>> Thank you

06:26for being here today.

06:27>> Please raise your right hand. Do you

06:28swear the penalty of perjury that the

06:30testimony they about to give is the

06:31truth? The whole truth about the truth.

06:33>> I do.

06:34>> Please state name, please. uh eight or

06:37so uh managing engineer, traffic

06:40engineering and public works.

06:47>> I also sorry

06:51be remiss if I don't thank Nate. So um

06:54we we had shared this um months and

06:57months ago with the uh with the

06:59administration and the traffic engineer

07:02and we've also been in touch with uh

07:05folks from from DOT. So all of those uh

07:08those inputs were were instrumental in

07:10in drafting this this orance before it

07:13it came before the city council.

07:15[clears throat]

07:16So I want to thank for his his

07:18assistance and his feedback on this as

07:20well.

07:22What do you think

07:24about these new?

07:26>> Yeah, I I agree with with the councilman

07:28that you know um

07:31efforts to improve pedestrian safety,

07:34you know, that's where a lot of the

07:35accident issues are in recent history

07:37and um no turn without that. Um so I am

07:42uh in favor of this. I I I think we

07:46should just clarify a couple things.

07:48>> Okay. whether it's the intent is to um

07:53not allow rent turn on red or not allow

07:56when it's signed as such with no turn on

07:58red sign that would be in favor of the

07:59latter. So you if we could just clarify

08:02that in the um

08:05you know the right in in the the text of

08:07the uh the of the ordinance

08:12>> any question

08:18could you just clarify that I'm sorry

08:20what what's the point?

08:23>> Right. So

08:25you could you could pass an ordinary

08:28says there's no turn on red, you know,

08:31in downtown initially and then all

08:33signals or or you could you could phrase

08:35[clears throat] it so that it's no turn

08:37red but it's got to be signed as such.

08:39>> So I mean I I see traffic lances both on

08:42the state that's accompanied

08:47sign

08:49right. So someone can't get a ticket

08:51without you know sign there telling them

08:53that. So

08:54>> well not

08:55>> well

08:57but there are many streets already with

09:00the sign that says don't turn around.

09:02>> Yeah, but not not necessarily all of

09:05them.

09:05>> Not all of them.

09:06>> Yeah.

09:06>> Right.

09:07>> Yeah. And I I think um I think it makes

09:10us safer really um and the pedestrians.

09:15So I have no idea that but um and there

09:18are many ministries that already have

09:20them. So if you just Yeah. too.

09:22>> Yeah.

09:22>> Yeah. There I mean when we

09:25the city um a couple years ago did an

09:27initiative of doing le pedestrian

09:29interval and we we started to put some

09:31no turns on red there. Um

09:36>> which is the how much I get how much I

09:39will get if I drive because I do that

09:41every day.

09:43>> We have a price for

09:46>> Yeah. This is based on the the

09:49existing ordinances. Um but there's a

09:52there's a first instance of

09:54non-compliance

09:56um which would be a warning um when this

10:00gets adopted and then subsequent

10:03violations uh would be subject to to a

10:06$75 fine. Uh but the the ordinance the

10:10way that it was written was to provide

10:13people with care learning um just so

10:18there's not a heavy hand especially as

10:20as as this gets uh adopted. But again

10:23ultimately the the goal is to keep

10:25people safe. So to to help pedestrians

10:30cross safely to ensure that downtown

10:33which is highly traffic from a

10:35pedestrian perspective is is is more

10:38safe.

10:44>> Go ahead.

10:45>> Yeah. And that's where it gets a little

10:47confusing because you're making you're

10:49making reference to downtown but we have

10:53it already on Gro Street. We have Anwood

10:55Avenue. We have it throughout the city.

10:56It's a little bit of difference.

11:00Oh, if you if you read the or actually

11:02it expands in 2028 to to all city uh

11:07graphics.

11:10>> So, why is it saying specifically uh

11:12downtown

11:14>> initially starting in 2027?

11:17>> Okay.

11:19>> Um

11:21we do have it throughout.

11:23>> Yeah. I mean it's a short time to get

11:26the remaining signs up. I mean there are

11:28some intersections up but it could be

11:30>> but is around.

11:32>> Well, but it will you know it

11:34>> it's it's 28 so it will be basically a

11:39year. So downtown

11:44>> 2027 for those

11:46>> 2027 for downtown 28 um

11:55can we make any changes on this

11:57resolution like let's make the changes

12:0128 be getting ready for now to

12:04compliance so the DPW will have time to

12:08make signs

12:09and get everything order and let the

12:12police know what's going on. And can we

12:14change the 75 to 50

12:17>> if that's what the committee wants?

12:20>> January.

12:21>> Yeah. So so so the the current ordinance

12:23says that this would start. So just just

12:27are you suggesting that downtown

12:29would start in 20 in 2028? Yes,

12:32>> that's what you're suggesting.

12:35That's a change that could be made.

12:40What are we gaining by building that

12:42>> time?

12:44Yeah, that's that's a twoyear time.

12:47>> Do you need do you need that to time man

12:49or is that

12:50>> um We'd have to see. I I know we started

12:52putting some of these. I'm not sure how

12:53many we have.

12:55>> I mean, possibly if we could just change

12:58the ordinance to clarify that it's it's

13:00enforceable when signed. Then, you know,

13:03I mean, it'll be enforceable for say 10

13:06intersections now. that's already signed

13:08[clears throat]

13:08>> and then if it takes

13:09>> it's only enforceable once you put the

13:11signs up.

13:12>> Yeah. Yeah.

13:12>> But some already have the signs. So,

13:14>> Exactly. So,

13:15>> right.

13:16>> Yeah. So, that's

13:18>> you want to go over toward 6 months

13:19then.

13:20>> Well, by 2027,

13:23>> well, I I I think that the the timelines

13:26are

13:29are solid. Uh, but I think to Nate's

13:32point, a simple amendment on when it's

13:35signed could is is I think an

13:38appropriate solution.

13:42And that's a

13:44I don't know if we can vote the deputy

13:46uh director here or deputy chief of

13:50staff and then our director of policy

13:52because that's a simple amendment that

13:54we can we can make. Um, and I think that

13:59would allay all the concerns.

14:01>> Section 15 violations that are talking

14:04about the last page

14:06>> A and B.

14:08>> No, it will be um the section that you

14:12had listed which is um around the

14:14signage

14:16or you would want that um in section 15

14:2119.

14:251519B. It it does it does mention that

14:28the traffic shall install signs, but it

14:30doesn't it doesn't clarify that it's

14:33enforcable.

14:35>> I think I think I think the goal is to

14:38um to only have the uh violations be you

14:45know cost people money or can have

14:49people be a warning if there is a sign.

14:51I think adding a two adding maybe five

14:55or six words to section 15-20 would

14:58would work

15:00>> and I would like to change the client

15:06because you you want people to come to

15:08the town. If you get if I get a ticket

15:11here by coming back to the ground,

15:14you'll be over here the old building

15:16next door.

15:21>> Deputy director um or would you like to

15:26speak to that? I mean I

15:29>> Well, yeah,

15:29>> I don't want to speak that term, but I'm

15:31I'm immuneable to that. I I but I

15:36>> I think it it it's based on current

15:40fines and fees in the city. So

15:42>> it is the same the same fine around the

15:44city

15:46like a grocery.

15:50>> I'm not I'm not familiar with the

15:51current

15:52>> current fine is um

15:55>> so that's to the pressure of the police.

15:59>> So I think that if I can comment when

16:01this was originally drafted the $75 was

16:04meant to be in line with the same level

16:06of some of the violations around the

16:07city. I don't have the schedule in front

16:09of me, but I do know that 50 would

16:11probably be probably be low considering

16:14that um during the last budget season

16:17just collectively the city, you know,

16:19analyzed our fines and fees and

16:21recognized that we were much lower than

16:22our neighboring communities and um that

16:24number $75 is reflected with that.

16:27That's the reason why it was set that

16:28amount.

16:29>> So that's it's consistent with their

16:31current fines and fees. If if the

16:33committee however feels as though that's

16:36something that

16:37uh

16:38>> if you pass the bus stop let's speak to

16:40that if you pass a traffic a red traffic

16:44light

16:45>> that's what

16:46>> that's 85

16:47>> 85

16:48>> so let's make like a bus stop $50

16:54>> I would defer to uh my fellow colleagues

16:58here in the committee on that's I I I I

17:02think that that can be worked for

17:04because

17:06>> you're not going through the red light

17:07which is $85. It just it's more like a

17:10you're not turning red. You're not

17:12turning right on red as a credit seat uh

17:15in order to make it safer for the

17:17pedestrian. So maybe it should not be uh

17:20as high as the others uh being that you

17:23know it's just it's just a good seat and

17:26it's a safety measure like others but

17:30it's it's not as drastic as going

17:32through the red light. [clears throat]

17:36>> So can we make those changes uh

17:41>> probably make the chair happy too?

17:43>> Go ahead.

17:47I'm sorry this was already mentioned

17:49maybe this is a question for the deputy

17:51director but um what what is the compare

17:56what is the fee the

18:00sort of like it's comparable with the

18:02other cities

18:04and we have a question

18:08well where have I answered what what are

18:12the fees that you see

18:13>> I mean um I do have just some of the

18:15current you know findings and fees you

18:17here in the city. Just to show how

18:18they're comparable, I'll just mention a

18:19few. Um, standing, you know, for

18:21prohibited areas, $50 stopping bus away

18:25from curb, $50. $75 for violation of a

18:28moving vehicle for traffic regulation,

18:30which honestly would kind of fall under

18:32this. So, that's very consistent there.

18:34And

18:35>> what city is that?

18:35>> Um, this is all across um this is

18:38>> this is Province. But however um these I

18:41just don't have the rest of the cities

18:42around us. But when we updated those

18:45that brought us to comparable you know

18:47amounts to the New Havens, the Bostons

18:49and Worcers. Um that's where we are now.

18:51But previously it would have been you

18:53know much lower than those other

18:54communities. So I feel confident saying

18:56that that's consistent with like our

18:57neighboring New England communities

19:00to hold it at an amount like that. J I I

19:04don't know. I'm not really hooked up on

19:06$75 versus 50 to be honest. Well, you

19:11know, I I I'm okay with that number as

19:13is. Um

19:15I don't think it makes a material

19:17difference to go down to 50.

19:20Um especially if it's that's a

19:23comparable number to what I think is a

19:2559 58,000 comparable. No, sounds like

19:29675 is comparable to larger cities and

19:31towns nearby.

19:32>> Yes.

19:33>> Yeah.

19:37>> But then

19:37>> we have to protect the city and we want

19:41to we want to motivate the people.

19:45So you're talking about like the first

19:48will be a very

19:50>> Yes. I guess that's like passing a bus

19:55or

19:57that son came

20:00when they were there. So after that

20:07and

20:08I'm still not comfortable with $75

20:12for

20:16anywhere in the city.

20:21So, I'm as the sponsor of this

20:24ordinance, I'm happy to go down to 50. I

20:27think it sounds like councelor Roy is I

20:30don't want to speak for you. You're also

20:32okay with going down to

20:34>> Sure. I think consequential.

20:38>> Yeah. I don't know if 75 is what

20:41dissuades people from turning right

20:44because it it's a higher amount.

20:46financially incentivize folks to not

20:48turn on rate. I guess that if they're

20:50going to be charged a higher amount, I

20:52think I just I'm I'm happy to go down to

20:5550. What I do disagree with is that $75

20:58would somehow discourage people from

21:01from going downtown. I think what would

21:04discourage someone from going downtown

21:06if they get hit by a vehicle,

21:08you know, they get hurt. That's not that

21:11folks from

21:14access accessing downtown but I'm fine

21:17if my colleagues want to go down to 50 I

21:21won't

21:23>> okay thank you so changes are

21:27>> um I apologize you finish that piece but

21:29I did have a further comment about the

21:31other [clears throat]

21:32um discussion that we had about the the

21:34requirement for signage because I do

21:35think that the interpretation may not

21:38the

21:40what we discussed might not be what's

21:42written here. So if you finish that part

21:44about the 7550 then I'll get to that

21:45about that.

21:49>> So the unit 202 staying the same

21:55you okay with it?

21:57Yeah, I mean I don't have a quantity of

22:00how many more we have need to do in

22:02downtown but you know I think we said

22:04that if it says that it's enforceable

22:08when signed and it's going to be one

22:11we'll try to get rid as soon as possible

22:12but if we don't maintain it by first

22:152027 then all the ones that are signed

22:18are will be able to be forced

22:21>> and I got told that was this this orient

22:24was going to be yesterday town So and

22:27now I'm reading here that the beginning

22:29of January 21 will be the whole city.

22:32So the whole city we have new council

22:37people come in.

22:39I would rather give this

22:42now taking this away into the new

22:46members coming and say look we we would

22:49like to implement this into the whole

22:51series. So that new members will say we

22:53like to do this because now we talking

22:56about and some members are then I don't

23:04like to leave it like that way

23:10taking away B we don't need B

23:21Are you okay with that?

23:23>> So I think we we have to go back to the

23:26intent of this ordinance. So again, if

23:29you look at and I don't want to talk

23:31about this like theoretically,

23:34but the goal is to keep pedestrians

23:37safe. So it's not I think when we put

23:42that at the core of like what this

23:44ordinance is trying to accomplish

23:49I think the people who are who are who

23:51have been advocating for this and the

23:53people who help this ordinance

23:56uh that that is their intent and so

24:00removing that clause would basically

24:04undermine the intent of this entire

24:06ordinance. The goal is to again keep

24:10pedestrians,

24:12keep people in our city safe when

24:14they're and and this is actually

24:16standard practice in in in some other

24:18municipalities where there's just simply

24:20no right turn on the right. Um, so I

24:25think if we if we center on its core

24:29that and also what what the co-sponsors

24:32what what

24:34several of the co-sponsors have intended

24:37with this, I I think it would make sense

24:39to keep um section 1520

24:43be

24:45there's clearly a a runway for for

24:48implementation and that was well thought

24:52out so that there is time to actually

24:57citywide

25:00>> because

25:01thank you for your information. The

25:03thing is we have spirit cameras, we have

25:07school cameras, we have bus cameras, we

25:09have traffic cameras and all these

25:12cameras what they do they are

25:15inflation

25:17working three jobs in my community in

25:20the lower community and then you want to

25:23have them think they want to make the

25:27right

25:29like

25:31union. You go for union, the line is

25:33red. If you don't make it right, that

25:36traffic will go all the way to that

25:39nobody cares. If you can make it right

25:42and red,

25:44that traffic will move because it's not

25:47a two-way lines. It's only one way going

25:49down. Then all we have will have to have

25:52a CL.

25:55Do we have CS? We have no CS. No.

26:03I I appreciate your your sentiments. I I

26:06totally understand where you're coming

26:08from. I I think

26:12>> you had asked to potentially lower the

26:14fee. It sounds like the committee's

26:16amunable to that and I think the body

26:19the body would be immuneable to that

26:23based on your concerns that we want to

26:26be mindful about how this impacts uh the

26:29people in our city and that I agree with

26:32you more fines and fees sometimes that

26:35can be very very very challenging for

26:37for people who who live in our city. So

26:39lowering the the ticket price, I think

26:43sounds like a a really good good

26:46compromise. Um, however, again, when

26:50we're thinking about the the intent of

26:52the entire ordinance, it's it's to keep

26:54people safe. So when we think about

26:58speed cameras that exist in school

27:01zones, those are there to keep our kids

27:03safe. And so if we center it on safety,

27:07yes, those those tickets are warranted

27:10because if someone is uh traveling well

27:14above the speed limit in a school zone,

27:16they should be held accountable for that

27:18because it's about keeping our our

27:20children safe. That's also the intent of

27:23this ordinance. The goal is to keep

27:25pedestrians safe. Uh the goal is to

27:28ensure that we're avoiding traffic

27:30accidents. there's clear data on why

27:34these kinds of ordinances help um in

27:38cities uh and ensure the safety of of

27:41our constituents. And I think the the

27:46price of a ticket, a $50 ticket, pales

27:51in comparison to the price of a light.

27:54And so if someone was hit um by a motor

27:59vehicle uh because

28:02we didn't have this kind of forward

28:05thinking legislation, I think that's

28:07much more damaging than someone paying a

28:10$50 ticket. And we've had several

28:12pedestrian accidents and deaths um in

28:15our community. Um, and I think this is I

28:20think it's a reasonable solution uh to

28:23ensure that we're preventing those

28:26deaths and those accidents from

28:27happening in the first place.

28:37Remember

28:40you think would be a good idea to move

28:43this

28:47I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. I I'm

28:50happy to go down to 50. What is What is

28:53wrong with

28:55plainly? What's your concern about

28:57[clears throat] provision SE or

28:59subsection B?

29:01>> Yes.

29:02>> What's what's your concern?

29:08>> So, yeah. What is the concern concern is

29:12that when they explain me the ordinance

29:14they told me was going to town

29:17now I see that be is going after the

29:19rest of city

29:21>> right

29:21>> so somebody's tricking me out or lying

29:24to me here and I I didn't born yesterday

29:27and I don't like to create laws where

29:30the people the minority community will

29:32keep paying paying and paying every time

29:35that we create a law yes to grab

29:40I I need to just ch

29:43>> engage in dialogue with you.

29:45>> There's not a camera that's going to

29:47capture it would be a police officer

29:50that is going to enforce this. Correct.

29:53>> So it's not camera. It would be the same

29:55thing if someone wasn't wearing a seat

29:57belt. Are we going to then say

30:00we're going after people because we have

30:01to of course wearing seat belts. You

30:03know what I mean? Like I I I do get your

30:06that example you provided where you have

30:07a in your neighborhood you have traffic

30:11that is a gridlock

30:14>> and you see that turning red will

30:17alleviate some of that gridlock. I guess

30:19my what I'm not convinced on is the

30:23example you provide in which there's a

30:25there's significant movement happening

30:27in such a way that would be so

30:30convincing to to not move forward with

30:34this. I think I don't I if there is a

30:37gridlock and folks are turning right I

30:39don't think it's going to get rid of

30:41that gridlock. It might help help

30:44incrementally. I mean I think Nate I you

30:46could speak to that. I'm not my my

30:49assumption is that if there's a gridlock

30:51and folks don't turn on red turn red on

30:53right

30:54>> I think I think what he's saying is if

30:56you only have one shared lane that's a

30:59right and a and a and a through and a

31:01left that person that was uh I mean if

31:06there's a significant amount of right

31:07turning traffic you know that person is

31:10going to just be in that queue so it

31:12could um but um you know there is

31:16something in

31:17that allows a traffic engineer to make

31:19exceptions. So, um,

31:22>> okay.

31:22>> You know,

31:25that that that would be an exception

31:26when when putting in a a don't turn on

31:30red causes not an inconvenience, but you

31:33know, some type of congestion.

31:44>> So, Mr. Mr. Chair, we're going to call

31:46in the section C

31:49for January 1, 2028 or it'll be federal.

31:54>> That's my concern.

31:56>> That's your concern. So, did you say

31:59that when this came before you and what

32:02it was discussed with you that section

32:05had not been added? That was not part of

32:07the conversation that you had.

32:09>> No.

32:11>> So, that's So, this comes as a surprise

32:13to me today. Yeah,

32:15>> I I am all about safety, making our city

32:18safe to everyone. Um, those that drive,

32:21those that walk, those that and anyone

32:24should feel safe in the city. Uh, and I

32:26think that that's a goal that we can get

32:28there, too. But for you to say that this

32:32catches you as a surprise. I'm concerned

32:34about that. So I I tend to um if we

32:39discuss something which is well the way

32:41that we've done business it should be

32:43the same uh and was presented before us

32:46when we actually get to the meeting and

32:49we get to discuss it. There should not

32:51have been any changes without having

32:54your opinion on it. So if that is the

32:57case then I got to side with you when it

33:00comes to that because if this is coming

33:02to you as a surprise new chair then I'm

33:04concerned about that. Uh but but at the

33:07end of the day even if we don't move

33:08forward with this down the line I think

33:10it's something that we should be

33:12actually living and that we should be

33:13implementing. So I'll pause today on

33:16this because of the fact that you will

33:17not but I do agree with the u with the

33:22reduction to $50. I do agree that we can

33:25start and begin to implement the

33:27downtown

33:29and then we can probably go from there

33:32and see

33:34uh the result of that and we can always

33:37expand it uh with your knowledge and and

33:40and your supervision and communication

33:43with you as chair way.

33:46>> That's correct. We can implement this

33:49with a new town is coming. We can use

33:54that town as a pilot program for now and

33:57then in the future

33:59and go

34:02for

34:05>> Yeah. So I'm I'm happy to chime in and

34:07to be clear this this ordinance

34:09has not and you can speak to this um

34:12deputy chief. This ordinance has not

34:15changed. So this is the the same

34:18ordinance that we initially introduced.

34:21>> Yeah, this was introduced as is there

34:23having been any um official amendments.

34:25>> We haven't we haven't made any

34:27amendments to this. So this is actually

34:28the same same ordinance. Um

34:33so what

34:36so hasn't changed

34:38>> from um

34:39>> yeah our the the process from you know

34:42um council staff you know as the

34:44ordinance was finalized after the

34:45feedback from the province streets

34:46coalition and after confirmation from

34:48the councilman we submit as is and any

34:51amendments would have to come now and we

34:53hadn't discussed any of there were any

34:56that was sent over there were previous

34:58versions that were out before

34:59introduction um So there could be some

35:01completion there perhaps,

35:03>> but the but those never got introduced.

35:04So this is the this is this is this

35:07ordinance that is currently before you

35:09ordinance that was introduced. So that

35:11there's no additional provisions

35:15or changes. Uh

35:21>> yeah, that's so yeah the question is

35:25yes.

35:27>> Yes. So first would be changed to $50

35:33what section it's going in the different

35:35section you want

35:37by

35:39I need a motion

35:41to change the

35:44value of the

35:45>> right so I I'll make a motion to reduce

35:48the fine amount from 75 to $50.

35:53Okay. A second.

35:56All right. So that motion

36:01if I may.

36:03>> Okay. All those in favor has the motion.

36:06>> All those opposed. No one. Any session?

36:09None. So the motion pass.

36:13>> That's section A in

36:16>> talking about the fines only. The fines.

36:20That was just for the fine.

36:22If I may, chairman, before this the

36:25second motion.

36:26>> Go ahead.

36:27>> So, um I think um

36:31in the spirit of

36:34the intent of this ordinance, I was

36:35wondering if it'd be a possibility to so

36:39section 1520,

36:42the second page, section B, which is

36:45what you're concerned about that

36:48the implementation by 2028. Would

36:52it be possible to just strike the second

36:55line of that? So each subsequent

36:58instance of non-compliance will be

37:00subject to a $75 fine per per uh

37:05instance of violation. So it still

37:09maintains that a police officer could

37:11provide a warning. There just wouldn't

37:13be a fine associated with it. And that's

37:16something that maybe the council can

37:17revisit in the future as it relates to

37:19the entire city.

37:22Let me read that for section. I

37:24>> I can share that again. So basically

37:26section B, the second line that says

37:30each subsequent instance of

37:32non-compliance will be subject to a $75

37:35fine per instance of violation. So if we

37:39struck that line, there wouldn't be a

37:42fee associated with violations across

37:45the city, but future councils can can

37:50grapple with whether or not they want to

37:52uh reinstitute that line, but it would

37:55still allow so if there was some kind of

37:59violation that became a safety issue, it

38:01would still allow police officer to

38:03issue a verbal warning.

38:07So you eliminated a fine with feed for

38:10the city. That doesn't make sense to me.

38:13>> So you have a sign which will be well

38:17cuz his his cons he wanted to strike out

38:20the entire section B.

38:24So I'm

38:26trying to find a the common ground here

38:29where it still would be

38:31an issue. There just wouldn't be a fine

38:34associated with the issue.

38:37um and the the future council can

38:39revisit that that particular provision

38:41as opposed to like getting rid of the

38:44entire section D.

38:47>> So you want to be issuing fines downtown

38:54that will pass.

38:55>> That doesn't make sense to me.

38:57>> You just I'm just throwing something out

39:00there because you cannot find a whole

39:02section of the city.

39:03>> Yeah. I appreciate you looking for a

39:04compromise chair. There's already a car

39:07problem

39:08>> as as Nate was saying that in instances

39:12where it might not be beneficial

39:15the it would be at the discretion of the

39:17city to say whether or not such as that

39:21intersection you you provide as example

39:24should that have a no turn on on rent.

39:28So I I we lowered it to 50.

39:33There's a special car at the discretion

39:35of the traffic.

39:39I So like I guess I'm like what's the

39:43hold up here?

39:45I'm speaking plainly here. Right. Does

39:49that car out satisfies you right now?

39:55because

39:57only we have only one year to go into a

40:01hor

40:03like I said before this one got me by

40:06surprise I didn't know anything about

40:09the session 15-20

40:13election letter B I'm asking I will ask

40:17for a motion to remove

40:21session 15-20

40:25remove

40:29the next

40:31administration can bring them back and

40:34revisit and make a decision

40:38if they would like to add it all.

40:43>> Go ahead.

40:44>> Just as a just as sort of a a point of

40:47order. Um Mr. chair. Uh

40:51there's also a provision in here that

40:53would require the city the the engineer

40:57to put a no turn on red sign at all

40:59places throughout the city.

41:02I would I would imagine that you would

41:04want that provision removed as well

41:06because then we would end up in the same

41:08place where we would have signs up

41:11and either the default provision of $75

41:17would come into play which I think

41:20nobody seems to want here or we would

41:23have a sign that

41:25doesn't that you seem to have also

41:28rejected the idea that you would have a

41:29sign that says it will turn on red if

41:31you can't get a ticket for it. So I

41:34would just say if you want if if if your

41:37Mr. share if your proposal goes through.

41:40I would ask that you not you should I

41:42would suggest that you would remove not

41:44just 20B but also

41:48um

41:51uh

41:5319 C

41:57which is the one where the city the the

42:00traffic engineer has to put the no turn

42:01on red signs throughout the whole city.

42:05That would be my suggestion.

42:09the traffic engineer has to do signing

42:11for many time anyway. So that's the only

42:14area that he's going to be concentrating

42:16to put up the signs

42:19and he don't have to go if he go he

42:22don't have to worry about the rest of

42:24the city. Well, according to 19C, it

42:28does state

42:29>> on the fifth page. It says, "Beginning

42:31on January 1st, 2028,

42:34the traffic engineer shall install no

42:36turn on red signage at all approaches to

42:38all signalized intersections in the city

42:40of Providence."

42:43But I'm simply assuming uh and please

42:45correct me if I'm wrong with that you

42:48wouldn't want those signs all over the

42:50city.

42:51>> We don't every intersection. So,

42:54All right. I see motion.

42:58Okay.

43:00All right. The motion is the floor. I

43:02need a motion to remove

43:07section 15-

43:1620

43:18>> 19.

43:21Sorry.

43:25So

43:28I mean the two

43:3415

43:42>> and 15-20

43:44>> you have a penalty without

43:52So, so uh but you move this will still

43:57work downtown, right?

43:58>> Yes.

43:59>> Uh it goes from 75 to 59

44:04situation.

44:19>> All right. So, I'll make the motion to

44:21remove section 15-9,

44:25letter C. Uh, is that a single motion?

44:30>> Sure.

44:31>> As well as 15-20, letter B.

44:41support.

44:44So motion

44:49>> I don't support the motion on amendment

44:52amending

44:54amending taking that

45:04>> second

45:06can

45:11>> second

45:13I have Let me look it up. I'm not I

45:16don't have my Robert's rules book with

45:18me, unfortunately.

45:21[clears throat]

45:27>> We've reached a constitutional crisis.

45:34[clears throat]

45:54I think I believe you can

45:58chair in asking me question.

46:01>> I'm taking that one.

46:04>> Well, that's first.

46:11>> You're glad.

46:30See if the chair can

46:33look proper

46:36[clears throat]

46:54to the purpose. Oh, no. It certainly

46:56has. I'm just I'm I'm finding a great

47:02bunch of uh disagreement.

47:05Um

47:06but I I believe it can I believe the

47:09chair

47:13I I will I will confirm.

47:18>> Yeah, I think I think we look into this.

47:21>> You have a book. You have a copy of

47:22Roberts from this handbook. Yeah, that

47:24would be great because

47:26>> my physical copy has

47:40>> I will double check but let's do

47:42Twitter.

47:43>> Yeah, I don't know how to trust a quick

47:45search.

47:46>> Yeah, that's the thing.

47:48>> You know, maybe five years ago I would

47:50have trusted Google more but um

47:54But now I don't trust anything. So

47:56>> yeah,

48:02>> I do feel confident that you can

48:06>> I believe in I mean I I think it's like

48:08with small bodies versus large bodies.

48:10Small body it's like yes but body is

48:13large but I think it's no

48:17this is just small body.

48:21I was thinking about

48:30this differently.

48:32>> So if I Yeah, I mean

48:36>> I'll wait till the clerk gets back. It's

48:38a little

48:41>> Now she's I know.

48:44>> I I

48:46pretty Yeah, I don't want to wait till

48:47she gets back, but it does seem like she

48:50did put

49:00What is your thing?

49:02>> Yeah, it's okay.

49:04>> Yeah, the um the chair has the same

49:06rights and privileges as any other

49:07member. The chair should only

49:12uh vote or do a motion when it matters,

49:17but they still can do that.

49:22I encourage this afternoon.

50:00So if a motion requires a majority vote,

50:02it fails when there is a tie vote.

50:04Therefore, if there is a tie before the

50:05chair votes, the chair may announce that

50:07he or she is voting in the affirmative,

50:09causing the motion to be adopted.

50:15Yes.

50:18[clears throat]

50:19>> Second.

50:19>> Thank you.

50:26>> I

50:28any

50:31motion pass.

50:35>> Now we need a motion.

50:40We set this.

50:42Now we need a motion

50:45to approve. Are we passing it?

50:49Mr.

50:52Senator

50:56>> I I hate to make this even more

50:58complicated, Mr. Chair. But let me let

51:00me just explain. There is in the list of

51:03ordinances a list of all the fines for

51:06traffic violations.

51:08I could we could we can Could I ask you

51:11to amend just to add this to that list

51:13because I don't want someone

51:16>> to try to look it up and miss it because

51:18it's not in the list.

51:20>> It's just it's just for the convenience

51:22of the people when they have one place

51:24to look for all their traffic fines

51:26>> as opposed to having to look around the

51:28Soion to

51:31>> add that basically add this to SE add a

51:34row to section 15.2 to

51:3715-2 that explains this.

51:41>> So there's a

51:43>> there are a number of in the ordinance

51:46>> I I can

51:46>> with the fines and fees there are number

51:48of like different traffic violations and

51:51what the cost is for each of those

51:53traffic violations. So he's just saying

51:54add another row to to add this. It's

51:57just a bill and because we're adding a

51:59new one, I don't want someone to miss it

52:01or someone to at municipal court to

52:04>> charge someone 50 to 75 bucks when it's

52:07only $50.

52:08>> Okay.

52:09>> So,

52:12>> this in here you want to add it.

52:14>> It would I would add I would ask them to

52:16add a section two

52:19that says

52:20>> that said that that that adds a road. I

52:24have it written here. You would like to

52:25take a look at it. Okay. Okay. I'll read

52:27it.

52:29>> So, add a section two to this proposed

52:32ordinance that that says section two.

52:36Section 15-2.

52:38Uh, the penalties [clears throat] for

52:40traffic violations shall be amended to

52:42insert the following row. Turning right

52:44at red,

52:46section 15-20.

52:49First offense warning, second offense,

52:51$50.

52:54Is that all right? That that is my

52:59motion to adopt just

53:09okay

53:12in favor I

53:17sgestion the motion passion

53:22as

53:24now we There's a motion. Yes.

53:27>> Um just we we talked about clarifying

53:30that this is enforceable when signed.

53:33Does that need to be a motion or is that

53:34something be a part of the version?

53:36Yeah.

53:37>> Okay.

53:40>> So I need a motion to approve

53:42>> amended

53:43>> as amended

53:45and to

53:47pass this right.

53:49>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so once it's approved,

53:51we get time to approve. So, motion to

53:53approve as amended.

53:58>> Second.

54:00All right. All those in favor?

54:03>> I support any objections? The motion

54:07pass. Thank you very much for your time.

54:11Thank you. Good luck. Don't turn around.

54:14[clears throat]

54:16>> I got to make sure.

54:17>> Only downtown. or you can come to any

54:30area.

54:31>> Get it out of my system.

54:33>> Okay. Now, we don't

54:40[clears throat]

54:41>> All right. So,

54:43>> All right. So,

54:45we need Okay. I want to take out of

54:49order number. No, I need a motion to

54:53continue. Number two, number three,

54:55number four.

54:57>> So move motion to continue. Number two,

54:58number three. All

55:00>> those in favor.

55:02>> All

55:03any motion pass.

55:10Resolution opposing the proposed

55:12demolition of residential properties on

55:14Brook Street by Browning New York State.

55:17>> Okay, we got anybody from

55:21Thank you.

55:30However you want to do

55:32>> state

55:36the testimony that you're about to give

55:38to take the whole

55:40>> I do state your name

55:43>> Alberg associate vice president for

55:46government relations at Brown's birthday

55:49providence res.

55:51>> Wow.

55:54Welcome. Can you please explain what's

55:58going on this property? And

56:00>> yes,

56:02>> first I want to thank you, Chairman

56:04Barbar, for having me here, giving me

56:06the opportunity uh to speak about this

56:08project and thank you for members of

56:10this committee. Uh I'm here today with

56:12my colleague Joshua Cora from Brown

56:15University. Um and uh I believe all of

56:19you have in front of you a packet of um

56:24that's slides that are the the

56:26presentation we're giving to community

56:29groups. Uh we've given uh to the W one

56:33and W two community meetings. Um and so

56:37I will at the chairman's request skip

56:39ahead to

56:41the six slide.

56:45uh that details

56:48the economics uh that I am. So, Brown

56:53University plans to submit an amendment

56:56to our 2023 institutional master plan uh

57:00that will have two projects. I'll just

57:02speak to one of those since that's the

57:04topic of the resolution today. Um, our

57:07economics uh program, our economics uh

57:10department is currently dispersed

57:12between five different buildings on

57:15College Hill. Uh, it is growing rapidly.

57:18It's one of the most popular majors at

57:20Brown. So, we are proposing to build a

57:23new home for the economics department at

57:26the corner of Charlesfield in Brooks.

57:29uh it'll be about a 60,000 square foot

57:32building and bring all the people in

57:34that department uh together. Um the

57:39slide you're looking at currently uh has

57:41highlighted the Watson School for

57:44International and Public Affairs. Um and

57:48uh also the Department of Political

57:49Science is located in that block too. As

57:52you note, it's uh between the and

57:55benevolent and Charleston. So, we're

57:58looking to put the economics building in

58:00close proximity to the Watson School and

58:03the Department of Political Science.

58:06So, what you see on the left is the the

58:10proposal we came out with in the spring

58:12of 2026

58:14uh as a potential site and massing

58:18that uh we shared with neighbors um and

58:21a and a community meeting and uh they

58:25gave us some pretty direct feedback. you

58:26know, they thought it was uh too tall.

58:29We had originally proposed it as 75 ft

58:32high, which is the limit within the I2

58:34zone and uh they said it was too close

58:38to the houses on the north on Benevol

58:41Street. Uh and it would have involved

58:44tearing down four houses, which is the

58:47topic of the resolution Councilman

58:48Gonzoff introduced. Um, and let me note

58:53that uh the properties that we're

58:55talking about are all Brown University

58:57owned. Um, and uh, this is within the I2

59:01zone, the institutional zone. So, what

59:04you're looking at at on the right is our

59:06current proposal. What we did is we uh

59:10this includes the concessions that we

59:13made uh to the neighbors based on the

59:16feedback we re received from them and we

59:18believe it's a reasonable compromise. So

59:21what we've done on the right is uh

59:24essential to pull the building away from

59:26the houses to the north uh lower the

59:29height from 75 ft to 60 ft. um and save

59:33two of the houses uh the two houses that

59:36are on the former benevolent and Brook

59:38Street above the the green uh and the

59:42belt rectangle. Um those two houses are

59:46uh were built in in the 1880s uh by a

59:50African-American developer, Alexander

59:52Borum. Um and uh although they don't

59:56have any uh historical significance,

59:58they do have cultural significance as

1:00:01part of a small black community that was

1:00:03there uh over 140 years ago. So uh we

1:00:07are proposing to restore and renovate

1:00:09those two houses uh that will need to be

1:00:12jacked up and lifted in order to build

1:00:15new foundations because the foundations

1:00:17are structurally unsound. Um we also may

1:00:21move them back from the sidewalks both

1:00:23on Broke and Benevolent Street to create

1:00:25a a wider sidewalk. Uh the other two

1:00:28houses um will be removed and I'll show

1:00:32you as you can see on this slide. Uh the

1:00:35the two houses uh that are kind of

1:00:38sketched out and dotted red lines, 289,

1:00:40283 Brook Street and 277 Brook Street,

1:00:45um will be uh demolished if we cannot uh

1:00:49identify someone that be willing to uh

1:00:52move them and relocate them. Um,

1:00:56you'll also see a uh a big red arrow uh

1:01:00and that indicates we plan to move a

1:01:04house [snorts] uh on the corner of

1:01:05Charles Field and Brook 7173 Charles

1:01:09Field over to the right. And the reason

1:01:12we're doing that is to create this new

1:01:15footprint for this uh the home for the

1:01:18economics department. that will involve

1:01:21demolishing uh a building that's

1:01:23currently housing our department of

1:01:25public safety. That's a three-story

1:01:27building that was originally owned and

1:01:29developed by Bryant College when it was

1:01:31located in College Hill. That building

1:01:34no longer meets our needs for the public

1:01:37safety department. It is old. It's not

1:01:40accessible. Uh it's not big enough. And

1:01:44so we're going to tear that building

1:01:45down, but move 7173, which is a historic

1:01:49home, into uh the footprint of that

1:01:52building. Um, we are going to relocate

1:01:56our public safety uh program, uh the the

1:01:59offices, the training and um uh storage

1:02:03space to 110 Elm Street. That's a

1:02:06building in the jewelry district. We're

1:02:08also going to have uh a public safety

1:02:11footprint at 205 Meading Street um which

1:02:16when I was a kid was a fast food

1:02:18restaurant uh but is now known as bagel

1:02:21gourmet.

1:02:26So this is just a slide that shows some

1:02:28of the sight lines along the street

1:02:30Brooklyn and Charlesfield showing that

1:02:32we're lowering the the height from 75 to

1:02:3560 ft.

1:02:37Uh the bottom shows the two houses next

1:02:40to each other.

1:02:42Uh and then our schedule. So we we

1:02:44wouldn't do um really any any work until

1:02:47uh next summer.

1:02:49And it would take about two years to to

1:02:52complete the work.

1:02:56This is just a list of the community

1:02:57meetings that we had and then we have

1:03:00two more to go next week. I'm happy to

1:03:02take any questions you might have.

1:03:04>> Okay. Thank you. any Okay, we have some

1:03:15other motion to enter this as

1:03:23>> second.

1:03:24>> Okay,

1:03:26those in favor any

1:03:30motions?

1:03:32Okay. So, we got right.

1:03:37All right. We have somebody from

1:03:40the ground inspection. Would you like to

1:03:42testify to

1:03:52raise

1:03:54that

1:03:56troop?

1:03:57>> Yes. Please state your name. You are

1:04:00over your

1:04:01>> James the third director of inspection

1:04:03stand.

1:04:05>> Thank you.

1:04:16>> This is a R2.

1:04:21>> What? What?

1:04:24I'm sorry. I Okay. Uh, is it historical

1:04:28overlay?

1:04:29>> Not a local historical apartment.

1:04:31>> Okay. Is are any of the buildings on a

1:04:34historical registry?

1:04:37>> Uh, they are the four houses that um

1:04:42that are the subject of the resolution

1:04:44are considered contributing structures,

1:04:47but they're not listed in the historical

1:04:49the history register for the historic

1:04:52district in city.

1:04:54>> Okay. And then we're not demolishing,

1:04:58we're demolishing two, relocating one.

1:05:02>> Correct.

1:05:03>> Okay. The stoing renovated two,

1:05:06demolishing two if they cannot be

1:05:08relocated. And and and then one is uh

1:05:137173 Charlesville. It's been moved to

1:05:17where

1:05:1875. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um and have you

1:05:23started

1:05:25It looks like you had a meeting with

1:05:27planning department. Have you started

1:05:29the land development project process

1:05:32with them for this?

1:05:34>> We have not.

1:05:35>> Okay. Okay. Um I can say that uh with

1:05:39state regulations that if it meets the

1:05:43requirements that city province cannot

1:05:47refuse the issuance of the permit.

1:05:57The state building code states that if

1:06:00it meets the city requirements

1:06:03that the building official shall issue

1:06:05the permit

1:06:06>> and it it

1:06:09does meet the requirements.

1:06:10>> It does.

1:06:12>> Yeah.

1:06:14So it has been

1:06:15>> so what I'm saying is that if through

1:06:18the process

1:06:20it is found through the land development

1:06:22process there's that process it goes

1:06:26through once it passes that process once

1:06:29it gets to the building permit process

1:06:31and it meets all those other

1:06:33requirements

1:06:34we have to issue it.

1:06:38>> Okay. uh Councilman

1:06:41>> and I work together revising to provide

1:06:46notification to other to a butters and a

1:06:5014-day period and and things of that

1:06:52nature. And the one thing that we run

1:06:56into is that even with the notification,

1:07:00that's all it is.

1:07:03It's just letting people know the only

1:07:06way to stop it is to take me to court.

1:07:10So, so it's been about approximately

1:07:13eight meetings held within the

1:07:15community. What has been the sentiment

1:07:18about that feeling? What what is the

1:07:20community saying? There's about eight

1:07:22meetings already.

1:07:24>> So, I I can speak to that. Um, as the

1:07:27council person who's representing this

1:07:30area, uh, I've been working with a a

1:07:33number of stakeholders. Um so we have

1:07:36had several meetings on the record both

1:07:39public meetings but also private

1:07:41meetings with many of the potters who

1:07:43live in close proximity to the uh the

1:07:46project.

1:07:47There has been based on what I have seen

1:07:52uh overwhelming opposition to the

1:07:56removal of the four historic homes. Uh

1:08:01there were over 800 petition signatures.

1:08:04So residents across the city uh

1:08:07including the abutters, including Brown

1:08:09University alumni, including Brown

1:08:11University faculty, including uh folks

1:08:15within the institution who expressed

1:08:18their their opposition to the

1:08:20demolition. Um and that number is now at

1:08:23over 800 residents, neighbors, uh and

1:08:28and stakeholders, uh including the

1:08:30Providence Preservation Society. So

1:08:36what you're hearing is um

1:08:39at least from the neighborhood including

1:08:43many of the abutters who I talked to

1:08:45very very much

1:08:48um on a on a recurring basis is that

1:08:52they are they're adamantly opposed to

1:08:54the the demolition of the the the Ford

1:08:57historic homes. um Proverbs Preservation

1:09:00Society actually is going to be

1:09:02releasing more information about this,

1:09:04but um what you've heard today is that

1:09:08uh yes, the the the the buildings are

1:09:12not in a local historic district. So, as

1:09:16a result, um Brown University is

1:09:19protected by the fifth amendment is that

1:09:22it is their private property. Um, and if

1:09:25they do decide to move forward with

1:09:27demolition permits, they would be able

1:09:30to go ahead and do so, assuming that

1:09:34they get approved by the CPC, uh, and

1:09:37they undergo um, that process, which is

1:09:40what they're intending to do, I believe,

1:09:41in November. Is that correct?

1:09:44Um however the the question is whether

1:09:48or not they should and ultimately that

1:09:52is the onus of Brown University. they

1:09:55can decide whether or not they want to

1:09:59demolish these properties. But the four

1:10:02properties while not in a historic

1:10:04district overlay, a local historic

1:10:06district overlay, uh they are recognized

1:10:09as contributing buildings uh within the

1:10:12national register of historic places.

1:10:15Now,

1:10:16>> where's the property?

1:10:19>> Where are the four properties?

1:10:20>> Yeah, it's obviously one, two, three

1:10:22properties.

1:10:24Um there there's four there are four

1:10:26homes.

1:10:30>> Yeah, there's the red ones. There's one,

1:10:32two, three. So now what with the arrow

1:10:35is going to be moving.

1:10:36>> There's one, two, three, four.

1:10:40>> Oh, those four.

1:10:41>> Those are all those are all four uh

1:10:44homes. And so those four homes, two of

1:10:47those two of those homes, 287 as you can

1:10:51see in 291,

1:10:53these two homes uh were were actually uh

1:10:58they were constructed in the 1880s

1:11:01by Alexander Gorum, uh who was a black

1:11:05real estate developer and

1:11:06philanthropist.

1:11:08um whose contributions alongside his

1:11:10wife Caroline supported institutions um

1:11:13serving essentially black residents um

1:11:16in in the city of Providence. So as as

1:11:19Providence Preservation Society has done

1:11:22their work, what they have realized is

1:11:24that um they're these folks who

1:11:29built these homes and developed these

1:11:31homes um again were part of the the the

1:11:35black community. Uh since the 1940s,

1:11:39uh Brown University has demolished

1:11:42um based on and and there's no specific

1:11:46count uh but based on a report um in the

1:11:49in the Brown Daily Herald over 150

1:11:53properties. Uh

1:11:55>> and those 150 properties now, what they

1:11:58have in there now? Um well some so for

1:12:00example a couple years ago Brown

1:12:02University demolished several properties

1:12:05um on Brook Street also on this same

1:12:07street to accommodate uh their their new

1:12:10dorm. So I don't know if you recall

1:12:12that's where our province police

1:12:14substation was. We also had several

1:12:16commercial properties there including um

1:12:20there was a there was east side uh

1:12:23miniar there was also um uh uh that's

1:12:27where uh I think bagel gourmet was

1:12:30initially we also there was a pizza shop

1:12:32there so they raised all those

1:12:34properties demolished those properties

1:12:36in addition to some historic homes to

1:12:39accommodate the new brown dorm so that's

1:12:41an example of they have over over the

1:12:45years demolished,

1:12:48you know, over hundred um 100 uh

1:12:52properties. So, the reason why the

1:12:55Providence Preservation Society is

1:12:58particularly opposed to this as well as

1:13:00many of the neighbors is because these

1:13:03these are homes that have significance

1:13:06to the neighborhood, but they're also

1:13:09homes that uh again were were were built

1:13:13by black families. What we've seen in

1:13:15our community, particularly in Fox

1:13:17Point, has been the displacement of um a

1:13:20a lot of people um many people who come

1:13:24from Kerian,

1:13:26Irish, Portuguese descent who have been

1:13:30basically pushed out of that

1:13:32neighborhood as a result of um

1:13:36the Brown University's rapid expansion

1:13:38as a contributing factor. Um, so

1:13:42as I've conferred with with my neighbors

1:13:44on this, including the recent community

1:13:46meeting that we just had in board one, I

1:13:49think we had uh I want to say about 50

1:13:52people on that call. Um, the the

1:13:55overwhelming

1:13:57um the overwhelming

1:14:00um feedback was that they would like to

1:14:03see uh these all four of the historic

1:14:07homes uh preserved. In addition again to

1:14:10these to the the 800 people who have

1:14:13signed this petition signature uh this

1:14:16sign the petition is in addition to um

1:14:19Proverbs Preservation Society also um um

1:14:23I think supporting the fact that uh

1:14:26these are these are these are historic

1:14:28homes. Uh the the two properties that

1:14:31are on the chopping block were were

1:14:35owned by the Fuller family uh and they

1:14:38played a role in the industrial uh

1:14:40development of Fox Point through the

1:14:43Fuller Iron Works. Um the Banister House

1:14:46is another property that was that was I

1:14:49think recently preserved here. But

1:14:51again, I think the ask here is is

1:14:55and and Brown ultimately will have the

1:14:57the legal right

1:14:59um to to to potentially demolish these

1:15:02homes, but it's to preserve these core

1:15:05historic structures and try to work

1:15:08within the footprint that they have um

1:15:12to build their economics building. Um as

1:15:16I've conferred with a lot of the

1:15:17neighbors, it's not that people are are

1:15:21opposed to the development of the

1:15:23economics building. they're more so

1:15:26opposed to all four of those properties

1:15:29being demolished to accommodate the

1:15:31economics building. So again, if you

1:15:34look at this map, there's significant

1:15:36footprints that we would hope will be

1:15:39able to accommodate the the economics

1:15:41building and the ask of the resolution

1:15:44is to preserve these four historic

1:15:47homes.

1:15:49>> Have a follow on. Uh yes.

1:15:53>> Oh, so

1:15:56are all four going to be demolished?

1:15:59>> No,

1:15:59>> there's only two.

1:16:00>> Only two. Correct.

1:16:01>> Right. So, we're making reference to two

1:16:03properties that are full.

1:16:04>> Correct.

1:16:05>> So, we're preserving 291 and 287.

1:16:08>> That's correct.

1:16:09>> Right.

1:16:10>> And then did you also say that one of

1:16:12the two that are safe to be dead now is

1:16:17going to be moved?

1:16:19Is that right?

1:16:21We're going to offer them or uh sale for

1:16:24a dollar uh uh to anyone who wants to

1:16:28buy them and move them. Um we're also

1:16:31going to offer some kind of financial

1:16:33subsidy to assist with that process like

1:16:36we've done in the past.

1:16:38>> Um

1:16:41>> so it's on to

1:16:42>> correct.

1:16:44At the community meeting come up there

1:16:46was only two.

1:16:47>> Yes. So, are they okay with that? It

1:16:49seems like you're getting half.

1:16:50>> No, they're they're not okay with it.

1:16:52So, I think the initial the initial

1:16:56discussions

1:16:58>> um were about demolishing all four of

1:17:01the the the properties and this was this

1:17:04was months and months ago. Um, and I do

1:17:07want to acknowledge and I I do want to

1:17:09share that we very much appreciate the

1:17:11fact that Brown

1:17:13uh was willing to make some changes to

1:17:16their initial proposal. So, initially

1:17:18they were going to uh demolish all four.

1:17:21Um they they have since made changes and

1:17:25they have since um shared those changes

1:17:28at least with with my neighbors in in in

1:17:32Ward One. Um and and the the sentiment

1:17:36was pretty clear that yes, we folks did

1:17:40appreciate the fact that Brown wasn't

1:17:43going to then demolish all four um but

1:17:47but they are still opposed to these

1:17:50additional uh two properties from being

1:17:53demolished. Okay. So,

1:17:55>> so I went from four to two

1:17:58>> and yeah and I I think

1:17:59>> an understanding that they have a right

1:18:01to take the government.

1:18:06>> So, so what is the hope from us if we

1:18:11can socialize

1:18:13>> if we can't I don't think we have a

1:18:15legal right or authority to stop it. Uh

1:18:19so as the director explained so

1:18:23>> what what could we do?

1:18:25>> So there there are a number of things

1:18:28that that that we're working on but I

1:18:30don't I think that's that's separate

1:18:33from this this resolution. Um, but I I

1:18:38think the the the resolution is is

1:18:40essentially

1:18:42um asking the university to consider

1:18:46preserving

1:18:48uh these four historic homes. Um, and

1:18:52perhaps the university decides that they

1:18:55do not want to preserve um

1:19:00all four historic homes, that they just

1:19:02want to preserve two of them. that is

1:19:04their that is their legal right. Uh but

1:19:07the resolution is is is just stating for

1:19:09the record that the body would be

1:19:12opposed to um to all four of these

1:19:15historic structures um being demolished.

1:19:19Thank you very much councilman.

1:19:21They according to the presentation the

1:19:25the contract has

1:19:27they going to be spend a lot of money to

1:19:29move 71 73.

1:19:32Yes. Imagine to move this huge building.

1:19:35They not going to the mileage that one.

1:19:36So they only saying they want to the

1:19:38mod.

1:19:39>> Yeah.

1:19:40>> And they going to give you 291 and 287

1:19:44for the historic and keep it there. And

1:19:46they will make the decision later on.

1:19:48They want to sell it for a dollar

1:19:49100,000 whatever how much the money is

1:19:52right

1:19:54>> well

1:19:54>> yeah we will offer those other two

1:19:56houses we're saying

1:19:57>> the other so it's the other two but

1:19:59>> but the last is we talking about 291 and

1:20:02287

1:20:03>> those are the one be keeping right

1:20:05>> correct correct

1:20:08>> 281 283 277 they going down because they

1:20:11want to make space to build a new

1:20:14building plus they're not destroying

1:20:1771 and 73. They want to move their back,

1:20:20>> right?

1:20:21>> So, they want to lift it

1:20:24>> and we're going to walk like like an

1:20:27inch by hour.

1:20:28>> Yeah.

1:20:29>> And I think I think people are okay.

1:20:31Just to clarify, people are I've been

1:20:35heard a ton of opposition to uh the

1:20:38demolition of the public safety

1:20:40building. So I think because that's not

1:20:43a historic

1:20:44it's it it doesn't it doesn't appear as

1:20:47historic as the other four uh the other

1:20:50four here. Um, so I just wanted it

1:20:53>> with all due respect

1:20:56281 23 27 they're not historic.

1:21:03They're not they're not in the history

1:21:05of those light, but they are they were

1:21:07built in the in uh they they were built

1:21:12um well over 100 years ago as I

1:21:15mentioned you know 287 291 they were

1:21:17built in the 1880s

1:21:20by and then the Fuller Fuller family

1:21:22Alexander Borum PPS has done an

1:21:25interesting expose on on this um

1:21:29>> question for many people even in 291

1:21:32enjoy this area.

1:21:33>> No, those houses are currently vacant.

1:21:36Uh Brown owns them, but they've fallen

1:21:38into disrepair. So, what we want to do

1:21:41is restore them. Like I said, lift them

1:21:43up, rebuild the foundation, totally

1:21:45renovate them. They look better than

1:21:47they did when they were built, and then

1:21:50uh use them for residential purposes.

1:21:52So, our intention is to either sell them

1:21:55to faculty or uh or have apartments for

1:21:58faculty and staff in there. So that will

1:22:01be housing act

1:22:02>> will be housing with the same style like

1:22:05historic.

1:22:06>> Yeah.

1:22:07>> So they're not destroying the

1:22:08properties.

1:22:10>> They're they're not destroying

1:22:12>> they want to rem

1:22:15and we uh we we very much we we we're

1:22:19grateful that Brown is going to restore

1:22:21those those two properties. I think it's

1:22:24it's the other two that people still

1:22:26have concerns about. But they not in the

1:22:29historic district,

1:22:32>> correct? They're not in the historic

1:22:33district overlay. Correct. But they they

1:22:37u Yes. But but they are if you if you

1:22:41look at they you don't see renderings of

1:22:44the actual homes, but if you saw what

1:22:47the homes look like, um I think the

1:22:50neighborhood

1:22:52uh particularly some of the gutters, but

1:22:54then broadly people would like to see

1:22:56those those homes preserved. I just want

1:22:58to share another important thing that I

1:23:01think is is um just based in and Brown

1:23:05can elaborate more on this, but based on

1:23:08just

1:23:10our experience with this

1:23:13when we when when Brown decided to

1:23:17uh demolish

1:23:20several um uh historic homes and

1:23:24structures on Burke Street as a part of

1:23:27their their dorm project a couple years

1:23:29ago. They had offered at that time to

1:23:34us, similar to what they're offering

1:23:36now, to to sell those properties for a

1:23:39dollar. Um, and any nonprofit

1:23:43could come in and potentially purchase

1:23:45those homes and and and maybe um move

1:23:49those homes. So it that sounds good, but

1:23:53it it's it's a very it's a very

1:23:56expensive proposition. So all of those

1:23:59um potential any anyone who expressed

1:24:02interest in purchasing those properties

1:24:05for a dollar in moving them the they um

1:24:10unfortunately it just wasn't feasible

1:24:12because what also comes with that is not

1:24:15only yes you could purchase the property

1:24:18for a dollar but when you need to remove

1:24:22the power lines when you need to find

1:24:24another lot to move that those houses to

1:24:28that that lot that has the same zoning

1:24:32when you need to close down streets, it

1:24:35it's exorbitantly expensive. And the the

1:24:38the estimates on that are actually

1:24:42probably more than what the house is

1:24:44worth. So yes, it sounds good in theory,

1:24:49but in practice, there's based on the

1:24:52experience that we had previously,

1:24:55it's virtually impossible to to to move

1:24:59those those homes. Um because it's very

1:25:03very expensive.

1:25:05uh again the foundation removing power

1:25:08lines actually moving the property to a

1:25:11site that can accommodate uh those those

1:25:14properties. So it's just

1:25:18it's not feasible.

1:25:20>> Okay. Council council to your so in your

1:25:23perspective offering

1:25:26selling those properties for a dollar

1:25:29so someone can move it. What you're

1:25:32saying in the end it won't happen. So it

1:25:34doesn't happen. Is is is the is the

1:25:37answer demolition at that point from

1:25:39Brown's perspective?

1:25:40>> Yes.

1:25:41>> Yes. And and they've done this again in

1:25:44the past. So they offer their properties

1:25:48up for a dollar. Um,

1:25:51and unless Brown is willing to commit to

1:25:54the to to the cost of actually moving

1:25:57the structures and helping a nonprofit

1:25:59partner do so, it it it's not it it's

1:26:05not really feasible. It's there's

1:26:07they're they're exorbiting costs to move

1:26:09their properties.

1:26:11>> So, I got a question for

1:26:14>> Yes. So you're saying that usually the

1:26:17Brown University will remod this

1:26:19property. So when the property is done

1:26:22rem

1:26:26the way it is. What is the

1:26:30bottom line here?

1:26:31>> So the the two properties you're talking

1:26:33about the two properties we're going to

1:26:34we have

1:26:35>> 21.

1:26:36>> Um we haven't decided what we'll do with

1:26:39them. We, you know, we might keep them

1:26:40and lease them to uh faculty and staff.

1:26:45We might sell them as part of the

1:26:46Brownto Brown program, which is a

1:26:48program we have where we uh fix up

1:26:52properties Brown owns, residential

1:26:54properties, and then sell them to

1:26:56faculty and staff at 80% of fair market

1:26:59value

1:27:01with a right to buy that property back

1:27:03when they leave the university. Uh so

1:27:06then uh we buy it back and we sell it

1:27:08once again to another faculty or staff

1:27:11member.

1:27:11>> Question for you before we keep going.

1:27:14>> When you send it back back to faculty,

1:27:17this property comes into the tax role.

1:27:20>> Yes.

1:27:20>> And start paying tax into the city.

1:27:23>> Correct.

1:27:26>> Another question. which is another

1:27:28reason why we should be preserving these

1:27:30other properties because they they

1:27:34thank you very much.

1:27:38The other question is if you remaining

1:27:55the property con

1:27:57they not want to demolish 291 and 287

1:28:03those property they going to be forever

1:28:05if they rem that way it look now to be a

1:28:10historic historic product.

1:28:13>> Yeah, I understand

1:28:15>> and I understand the idea because I

1:28:16don't want them to destroy these two

1:28:18beautiful products but they will rem and

1:28:21they will resell it or they will rent

1:28:24out.

1:28:24>> Yeah.

1:28:26>> So we not losing two props according to

1:28:28your messages that we're using these two

1:28:31drops too then they going to be

1:28:34>> no and there's a total of four. So we we

1:28:37would be losing

1:28:39>> two

1:28:39>> 281 and two uh 27

1:28:42>> 27 they are the historic

1:28:48losing two

1:28:49>> Yeah. We're losing two. Yeah.

1:28:52>> Yeah. And and again I want to

1:28:53acknowledge we're I think the community

1:28:56is grateful that Brown has decided

1:28:58initially they were going to again tear

1:29:00down off board. So, I think the

1:29:03community is grateful that Brown has

1:29:06decided that because of I'm going to say

1:29:10I think it's because of the opposition.

1:29:13I think Brown has decided, okay, we're

1:29:15not going to get rid of all four. We'll

1:29:18preserve two and I I think there are

1:29:20many members of the community who are

1:29:21very much grateful, but you know, if

1:29:25it's a possibility to preserve all four,

1:29:28that would be the ideal scenario. Again,

1:29:31that that is Browns,

1:29:33>> but it's a great year for the community

1:29:35that they should be having the Brown

1:29:38versus the table. So, you're losing two

1:29:41by getting two. So, they

1:29:44>> Well, well, those properties

1:29:47291 and 287

1:29:50were customarily

1:29:52um student housing. So, they they they

1:29:55they contributed through housing um for

1:29:59a long time.

1:30:00Under Brown's initial plan, if they were

1:30:03going to get rid of all four of his

1:30:05properties, they'd be demolishing

1:30:07critical housing. So, by preserving

1:30:10these two properties,

1:30:13you know, it

1:30:16it's basically

1:30:19it's it's it's going to help with our

1:30:21housing issue. Um, but initially again,

1:30:24they were going to take down all board.

1:30:30chair. I I think like I I'm not I don't

1:30:32want to act like the counselor uh in

1:30:34this war, but think I think to I I do

1:30:38understand the frustration of neighbors

1:30:40even if I'm happy that Brown is is is

1:30:43looking towards a compromise.

1:30:46Um,

1:30:48I think to say that neighbors should be

1:30:50happy with that is sometimes can be

1:30:52tonedeaf because they I think what the

1:30:55council has said they've seen

1:30:57uh properties be gobbled up for for

1:31:00decades and and so to to say okay be

1:31:05settle with with this compromise for a

1:31:08neighborhood that has seen even most

1:31:10recently

1:31:12uh homes be demolished. I just I I kind

1:31:16of feel for them. And um

1:31:19I I think the other point I want to make

1:31:21is just because it's not in historic

1:31:24overlay doesn't make it less historic. I

1:31:26have I have homes in law

1:31:30that are historic but are not in the

1:31:33historic overlay. The local historic

1:31:35history. Um so I just wanted to point

1:31:38that out. I don't think it takes that

1:31:39that history away.

1:31:44your house over

1:31:46my royal

1:31:49last question before I

1:31:52[laughter]

1:31:54>> when you going to be knocking this 281

1:31:57and 277 and moving 21 and 73 is to put

1:32:02up another building.

1:32:04>> Yes.

1:32:04>> And that's going to be housing too,

1:32:06right?

1:32:07>> That would be a home for our economics

1:32:09department. So there won't be any

1:32:10housing in our new building.

1:32:13It's just it's just it'll be classrooms

1:32:16and offices.

1:32:16>> So it will be classrooms and office. So

1:32:19we going to be able to use for students

1:32:22that will come and get educated

1:32:25and go out of there and start serving

1:32:28the community. So it's a win-win housing

1:32:31for education. So it's not using

1:32:36to have a commercial building.

1:32:39It's going to be a classroom. You might

1:32:42be teaching there.

1:32:45I don't know about that, but uh I'm

1:32:48I'm I'm [laughter]

1:32:52not an econ professor, but um I'm I'm a

1:32:55proud Brown alum. Um, and I love I do

1:32:58love Brown, but I I would just share

1:33:00that um the neighbors, again, there are

1:33:04a lot of neighbors who I just want you

1:33:06to like visualize this cuz I know these

1:33:08neighbors and I see them every day.

1:33:11There's a lot of kids that live in these

1:33:13properties next door. Like these these

1:33:16properties, by the way, are all

1:33:18families.

1:33:20They're all families that live here. And

1:33:23um like that's a family. This is a

1:33:24family. This is a family

1:33:27>> Brown faculty.

1:33:29>> Yeah, Brown. But they have young kids,

1:33:31you know. I've talked to their kids. I

1:33:34I've talked to the families and they

1:33:36>> But they work for Brown.

1:33:40>> Yes. That's

1:33:42>> they will say no about this new

1:33:47building and

1:33:49>> no they're respect. This is the way I

1:33:52see is a great

1:33:56a great investment for the for the city

1:34:00and all those you have you have already

1:34:03the resource that they happy to keep two

1:34:06properties rem that two properties

1:34:09knocking down the other two moving the

1:34:11other one

1:34:13remember those are private property

1:34:16but they give it back to the committ

1:34:19we're going to be moving moving this one

1:34:21the big one so to the side.

1:34:24>> So that's that that with all the respect

1:34:26chairman like that is your opinion. I

1:34:29what what I'm conveying is what my

1:34:31neighbors are saying the people that I

1:34:33represent.

1:34:35They are still opposed to demolishing

1:34:38all four homes. So like I I appreciate

1:34:40your perspective.

1:34:41>> They not for them fully.

1:34:45>> Yes. I I Yes, I know that. Um, but

1:34:49initially where they started was they

1:34:51didn't want all four of the homes to be

1:34:53demolished and they still wouldn't want

1:34:55all four of the homes to be demolished.

1:34:57They don't they don't want they don't

1:34:59want these two these these two

1:35:01properties that are slated to be

1:35:03demolished to also be demolished. So my

1:35:06my role here is to convey and they would

1:35:09have if they could have made it tonight,

1:35:11they would have been here. But like is

1:35:13to also convey that my neighbors and

1:35:17I've talked to them. I've talked to

1:35:18several of them even walking into this

1:35:20building tonight that they they're

1:35:23they're opposed to these two additional

1:35:26these two properties from from being

1:35:28demolished.

1:35:29>> Chairman, if I if I may go ahead. Um I

1:35:32noted in the beginning that the

1:35:34economics department is currently in

1:35:35five different buildings. Uh several of

1:35:38those three of those are historic

1:35:40properties. Um once this new building is

1:35:43built and we can move economics into the

1:35:46new building, we plan to restore those

1:35:50properties where uh economics is

1:35:52currently located. So, we're going to

1:35:55invest in those properties, keep them,

1:35:57restore them again, bring them back to a

1:35:59greater condition than they are

1:36:01currently. Uh I also skipped over one

1:36:04slide um that uh

1:36:09uh this is a just a slide that lists

1:36:12some of the properties uh historic

1:36:13properties that Brown owns that we spend

1:36:16a tremendous amount of money and time uh

1:36:18keeping in good condition that are

1:36:20historic properties um including the

1:36:23Banister house uh in the the top left

1:36:26second from the left uh which is right

1:36:29around the corner from the two houses

1:36:30we're saving that the home of the famous

1:36:32African-American painter Edward

1:36:34Banister. Uh, and we restored that house

1:36:38uh, which was in very poor condition to

1:36:40its original condition when Edward

1:36:43Banister were there that's currently

1:36:45occupied by Brown faculty.

1:36:46>> Yeah. So,

1:36:50so Brown is given back to the community

1:36:53is given back to the city. They

1:36:55maintaining all these properties that is

1:36:58not cheap to maintain like a historic

1:37:01building. It's not

1:37:05>> I'm not I'm not disputing that. I

1:37:08brownies Brown's invested over $200

1:37:12million in the jewelry district. I mean

1:37:15there there are a number of things you

1:37:17know as a proud Brown alum you know the

1:37:19the the the jobs that Brown creates uh

1:37:23the the economic progress the social the

1:37:26cultural capital that Brown brings to

1:37:28the city that that is not being disputed

1:37:33here the

1:37:36just to like really simplify what we're

1:37:38trying to do here is like we've got a

1:37:40resolution that was sent to a committee

1:37:44that several of our colleagues um and if

1:37:48I may like ask for all the co-sponsors

1:37:51have have have co-sponsored

1:37:54to say that they agree with the fact

1:37:56that Brown shouldn't Brown has the right

1:37:59to but Brown shouldn't demolish all

1:38:01these four historic homes. The goal is

1:38:04to just get this back to the con the the

1:38:07full council so everyone can vote their

1:38:10conscience. You may sir decide that you

1:38:14are in favor of what Brown is trying to

1:38:16do which is build an economics building

1:38:20for for the the reasons that you alluded

1:38:24to. But I there might be other members

1:38:27of the body who just who who agree with

1:38:30me and my neighbors that demolishing all

1:38:33all four his historic structures

1:38:36>> may not emerge through.

1:38:43>> Uh

1:38:43>> yes I know but

1:38:44>> thank you very much. We need to continue

1:38:47at least I need a motion to approve this

1:38:50resolution. Thank you. [clears throat]

1:38:56I um

1:38:58I'll second it. But

1:39:00>> I wait we you have enough for

1:39:02discussion.

1:39:04>> No, please.

1:39:08>> Well, it's um I I just I'll be brief. I

1:39:12just want to say that u you know we're

1:39:14getting hung up on this. At the end of

1:39:16the day, Ron has the right to develop

1:39:18his property to demolish them. not one

1:39:21or two or three, four, they give nobody

1:39:23to everything that they own because

1:39:25that's still the right they had. So I I

1:39:27I think that people should be more

1:39:29appreciative of the fact that it seems

1:39:32like there was a compromise in one of

1:39:33the meetings because now there's not

1:39:35four but there's only two and they are

1:39:37going to remodel the other ones and

1:39:39we're going to spend thousands of

1:39:40dollars on that.

1:39:41>> Um and at the end of the day we're going

1:39:43back and forth and this really carries

1:39:46the way. This is not binding. It's just

1:39:48an opinion uh which is not I'm

1:39:51>> it's not going to stop Brown from uh

1:39:55performing what they feel that they

1:39:57should within their master plan. So you

1:39:59know this is a good conversation but at

1:40:01the end of the day it's not a better

1:40:03conversation. I mean we heard from our

1:40:05DIS director saying that he's got to

1:40:08approve it. He said he is a private for

1:40:09the council beforehand and I have no

1:40:11reason to believe that a CPC is not

1:40:13going to approve them because at the end

1:40:15of the day they have the rights to do

1:40:16that but I you know it's a good

1:40:18conversation and I think it's it's one

1:40:20that is enlightening and it it teaches

1:40:23people that

1:40:26we'll stand to the floor and

1:40:29give everybody an opportunity to vote on

1:40:30it but understanding that at the end of

1:40:32the day not

1:40:35>> okay thank you very much available

1:40:40May your attention pass.

1:40:45>> Thank you for

1:40:48>> all right number six.

1:40:52>> Yeah.

1:40:55Don't say yes.

1:41:02>> Thank you.

1:41:03>> Resolution requesting.

1:41:07resolution requesting the traffic

1:41:08engineer to cause the installation of no

1:41:11parking anytime signs on the southern

1:41:14side of Park View Avenue.

1:41:15>> Yes.

1:41:16>> Okay.

1:41:18Number six is about

1:41:21putting

1:41:22no parking signs on southern side view.

1:41:26That's your

1:41:29>> where? Oh, this is this is actually uh

1:41:32this could be continued because this has

1:41:34already been done.

1:41:35>> Oh, okay.

1:41:39>> Okay. Motion to approve number six.

1:41:41>> So move.

1:41:42>> Well, we don't s to the floor because

1:41:45like I said, we need to order

1:41:49>> any

1:41:54it has to be on final paper. So it has

1:41:56to travel to travel.

1:41:58>> Yeah.

1:42:00>> It has to be passed out.

1:42:01>> Okay.

1:42:02>> All right. Motion to approve.

1:42:05>> So all those in favor

1:42:14>> resolution requesting the traffic

1:42:16engineer to cause the installation of

1:42:18the parking signs on Venice Street.

1:42:21>> Venice Street. This sounds familiar.

1:42:25No, no,

1:42:27>> that's

1:42:2914.

1:42:31>> No,

1:42:34that was installed.

1:42:37>> Yeah, both part you and correct.

1:42:39>> Okay. Motion to pass.

1:42:41>> Motion to approve.

1:42:42>> Approve. Number seven.

1:42:44>> Motion to move.

1:42:45>> All right. Yeah, I'm going to have to

1:42:47introduce a lot more resolutions then

1:42:50moving on this

1:42:52way. Thank you.

1:42:56>> All those in

1:42:58a session, the motion passes.

1:43:02>> Number eight,

1:43:03>> resolution requesting the traffic

1:43:04engineer to establish Buffalo Court as a

1:43:07oneway street.

1:43:11>> Yeah, this is a very narrow street. I'm

1:43:13in favor of doing it and I'm also in

1:43:15favor of the um the direction as follows

1:43:18in the resolution.

1:43:21>> Okay.

1:43:23to approve.

1:43:24>> Motion to approve number eight.

1:43:26>> Motion

1:43:28second by

1:43:31all those in

1:43:32>> favor.

1:43:36The motion pass. Uh motion to

1:43:43[clears throat]

1:43:45>> Okay. Second.

1:43:49Okay. All those in favor I those