Right here, we are. Okay, hello everybody. This is the City of Beverly Hills City Council study section November 17, 2020. It's 2.32 and we will start with oral communications. How long do we have anybody for oral communications? We do not have anyone for non agenda. Ready so that we will go right on to item number A1. Two, item number A1 employee recognition of police captain Michael Hill and we have selling all room online and I vote Captain Hill. There he is. There he is. Good afternoon Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. I am so pleased to welcome this afternoon Captain Michael Hill, who we will be recognizing for his 30 years of service at the City of Beverly Hills as he is preparing to retire this one. So with that, Mayor Friedman, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you very much. And I also see that the emphasis in chief, a coupon on the screen with us as well and as tap to the bill. This afternoon we are recognizing a member of our Beverly Hills Police Department who has dedicated 30 years to protecting our community. Captain Mike Snow joined the BHPD as a lateral police officer from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on October 20, since 1990. As a Beverly Hills police officer, Captain Hill worked on his time as with the special active active unit, and served in the motor officer before he was promoted to police sergeant on December 31, 2001. Can't be no never passed up an opportunity to continue growth on the job. If an individual supervisor for the crimes of parking unit and special practice unit, prior to this promotion as police superintendent on July 18, 2009, as the Senate's campaign bill was assigned to the Emergency Services Bureau and the administrative services division, working a long hours to ensure that community remains safe, save the standard of asylum policing we know, and recognize today the United States. Earlier this year, Capitville was promoted to police captain, an honor that the unguarded leaders served as the embark on a new journey that is now leading the city through the most its COVID-19. Throughout this 30 year history camp in Hilla Sur, there's a member of the SWOT, a range master instructor, a defense captain instructor, a driver's training instructor, and it serves four years within the United States Air Force. The impact he has left on the Beverly Hills community is something that will never be forgotten. On a personal note, there is a past world that I have to have be personally a being present at the emergency operation center with Captain Hill. And I have witnessed through this skill and expertise he has provided our community during these the most of the list times. I also have the honor of a company to Captain Hill to the New York, I'm sorry, to New work last year to visit their University of emergency operation center? And if I say it was a good word to learn our POC, I am wrong. It was about 20 times larger and it was quite impressive. Kathy Hill, I have myself in and the Bear with Hostility Council. We will recognize you as you have briefly retired from Katie tomorrow. It's easy to be so good to hold up your problem as we have created to recognize your achievements. You are welcome to do so. We gave him time to build for dedicated mirror life. Let's be able to see the status community through the organizational policing and inspiring those around you to be the same. Hey, so, everybody could ask, my father is an ACO. We do have public comment on this item. Okay. How do I make this bill? I was real soon in today, then, this time. Thank you. Michael Newman is on the call. Please go ahead. I'm a guy at large. I've lived in Beverly Hills for 60 years. And you've been watching over us for 30 years. You've been watching my bag and my wife back actually for 30 years. I have a wing girl who helps me meet great and talk to strangers. Her name is Lady, as a lady of the tram, lady named after Albee Rose, so her name is Adi. And that's because my wife in America, we come out of the 60s, actually. To you, Captain Michael, all of Beverly Hills years with the Beverly Hills PD reputation of warm, friendly, and intelligent peacekeeping. It's about me to meet numerous strangers and feel comfortable to greet and meet people all over the city. That's an enjoyment that I don't think a lot of cities enjoy. So it's really both like yourself, who have given us the atmosphere to feel comfortable walking about anywhere in Beverly Hills. So thank you very, very much. And I hope you really enjoy your new life. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Okay. But after four years of my college, we'd go to Assistant Keith Hoodwood. Thank you Mayor. Not that everyone on this call on meeting doesn't know. You will not find a more hard working, dedicated, individual, within the Beverly Hills Police Department in Tapton, Michael Hill. This is the first one to work, and has always been the last one to lead. His leadership is going to be thoroughly missed as it was exceptional. And personally for me, I really appreciate you, Mike, for realizing what we go through policy and really talking about a lot of critical things through the police department. You always are the first set of eyes for me. You always identified life spots that I was missing and you're going to be sort of enlist. I will see you well. I wish you family well and congratulations for 30 great time in our short time. And your kind of work is really important. that it and Michael Newman said, but let me just say that 30 years is a long time, there's a short time. And your contributions to this community are exceptionally appreciated, everything you've done, we appreciate your time. I think that Michael Newman's comments about soft-foot policing, you know, of the community-based policing policing, especially in port. And so from our community to you, we say thank you, job well done. If you decide you wanna reconsider this retirement thing, we'll probably open to it. But we wish you well, whatever you're next endeavor is bringing. And so you know you have a home here, if you ever wanna be here. So thank you. Thank you very much. And Councilmember, just a member of the Laws. Thank you. So Captain, I also want to share my biggest thanks to you. And as we talk about 30 years, you know, being in your profession now more than ever is something that I want you to know that we as a council, we as a community, thank you with all our heart for keeping us safe, for keeping us healthy. And I'm sure there are many days that the day should feel like a year, especially recently. I really want to also thank you specifically for this last year. It's been very challenging on you and on the department and on the community. And you need to look easy, which I know it has not been. You've kept it safe. You've kept the morale up. You have been through the leader, truly dedicated and on behalf of the council, behalf of myself and this community, we are really truly forever grateful to you. And you really have left a mark that will always, always be there. So really, we've all my heart in here. Thank you. And tell us a member of the committee. Thank you. Well, Captain Illinois, I'd like to admit I'm not quite as happy as Kelly to see you here today because of the circumstances. And as we refer to murder people, you embody at the department which is very unique in many ways because the Those police and community together is something that not all communities have. Where we look to the police as part of the community and where we avoid and us versus them in Caledity. And you know from the very beginning you've gotten it you know what this Community is about and you're part of it. And I think we're all going to miss you. And I was who would be staying on, but I believe they understand you've got places to go. People to see and I hope you really enjoy your retirement. But I do also want to express my gratitude for your 30 years here, which you all the best for your well-deserved retirement. But you're leading the rest of us with the Gil Street Blues. Thanks so much. I hope everyone will appreciate all you've done for us. Thank you very much. And I'm Vice Mayor Blumbooth. I will go first, I wish I could have John's line before him, and then I could speak before him. I'm not sure who we'll be able to top that one. But Captain Hill, we, I will miss it. I mean, this last year in particular, has provided an opportunity for you to shine. And you have time. It's been also an opportunity for me to see more what you do. And you've certainly contributed so much and certainly been what we like to embody in our police force. And so thank you, thank you for your 30 years of service. And we, and I will miss it. Good luck in your return. Thank you. And my thanks to you, I'd like to say to you everyone before I take. Well, first I want to recognize prostate cancer, awareness month, that's why I have the blue suit and the most specializer, the Warren and Ty, for this very special case. So thank you very much. The 30 years, a cat flew by when you really started to think about it when I first got here. But it was really a pleasure. And I always, there were some mark times and especially this last year, with tough law enforcement. We always knew that the community and the council had our backs, and that's really important. And I am sure I need to continue that, continue that around because the close work is as hard as it's ever been. The new officer said, the hardest stuff that I can even gets, it's hardest it's ever been. The new officer is still the hardest stuff that I can even imagine, it's harder than when I first started. It's just so hard because everything is on, damn it, everything you do, everybody thinks you're doing it wrong and they can do it better and it's just so important. So the officers have a real difficult right now. So please continue to support the right to battle all these years. And I really appreciate what this city has done for me and what this city has done. And I'm really going to go out of our channel, so thank you very much. Thank you very much, my name is, you're always welcome back. Okay, continuing our agenda and we do have a goal to stop at 4.6 teams so that we can finish up our closed session items and we were unable to get to last weekend. to get to last week in fact. So we will now go on to item number 8, 2, request by State Council of Finance and Missing Layers on for Dispison on Medical Use Regulations. And I see we have Ryan and Golett, who will present for us. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Friedman, Vice Mayor Wanderlick and Council members. As noted, we're going to be talking about medical use regulations and slides. Let's give a little bit of a background. This is something that was first discussed by this Council and planning commission liaison back in August 19th. And there was a request to bring this forward to the full state council for consideration. We did bring forward a study session item on September 15th to you. There was a fair bit of discussion by the council. A lot of the comments circulated around the fact that our current medical regulations had perhaps had unintended negative impacts on the overall business environment surrounding medical uses and that our regulations maybe have not kept up with the times. There was direction from the council at that point to come back at a future meeting to provide some additional info regarding the way medical uses or taxes, tax how medical uses are regulated in other cities, we also talked about the overall timeline to process standard ordinance, going to both the planning commission and then the same council, and between those steps along the way that required notices, first and second reading, and then the 30 days to become effective. Really best case scenario, it would be probably four to five months to have an effective ordinance. And the same council that expressed the interest in doing something more quickly, it just tries to address some of the office vacancies and provide additional flexibility for both property owners as well as businesses operating in the city and requested that we draft an urgency ordinance to bring back for consideration. So I'll be going in this presentation a little bit later through some of the details of that. Next slide. Thank you. Back, one slide I think. Okay, so just on doing a sort of recap of the background, we talked about this last time, but the same started regulating medical uses in 1989. Prior to 1989, medical was treated just like in any other office used. there really was no distinction. We started to regularly medically use this because there was some concern about over-concentration of medically-uses, potential parking and traffic impacts, lack of pedestrian activity, potential impacts to city revenues based on the way that medically uses our traps, and then also lines of preserve and space for other uses in the city. Those were some of the top concerns, but there are others that have been discussed over the years. Next slide. The current regulations, which we've had in place since 2011, they require substantially more parking in general office, almost twice as much parking. We do require, or we require, required as of 2011, that buildings register as medical buildings in order to retain their rights to medical offices into the future medical buildings that we're not registered are now considered to be legally non-conforming. And the only way to do new medical uses in the city is to receive approval for an overlay zone and provide a public benefit. Next slide. Based on the current regulations in order to establish or move medical uses that has to be cleared with the city, obviously, through a permitting process. And that can often be difficult depending on the quality of records for a building. It can also be time consuming and uncertain. As I noted in order to establish brand new medical offices, we have the overlaysome process. And through that, we determine what an appropriate public benefit might be. Today, we only have one applicant apply for and receive approval of the medical overlaysome. That's the property at the north, the east corner of Wilshire and Robertton. What we found is that the higher parking rates may be established in new medical spaces, close to impossible. Most of our buildings in the city don't have enough parking spaces to accommodate the higher parking rate and actually what you will find is that most of the existing medical buildings in the city predate the more current parking requirements and are actually parked at ratios similar to our general offices. Next slide. So now I'm going to do a little bit of a quick deep dive into the taxes and how that applies to medical uses. I think as you all know, medical uses fall under our professional and semi-professional classification as the class C business tax structure. Notably under class C businesses pay based on the number of payroll hours that are at charge they do not pay based on gross receipts. Whereas most of our other commercial uses can pay based on gross receipts of true for things like retail, restaurants, lenders, brokers, real estate brokers, and also commercial property rental. Next slide. What we've done is we've put together sort of a mock scenario of trying to compare the different business classifications to see where they fall on the spectrum of what they might pay. What the concern has been over the years is that medical uses a lower amount of taxes because they are tax on payroll hours as opposed to gross receipts. It's only difficult to do an apples to apples comparison of the two because we don't know generally what types of gross receipts medical offices are collecting because they don't have to report it and we report to payroll hours. We did talk to a few people and identify some real-world scenarios to try to establish an approximate baseline of how many payroll hours might relate to gross receipts recording what we settled on and this is really just for illustrative purposes I want to be clear that people you know each business has a zone set of circumstances People could be above or below in terms of payroll hours and gross receipts But we set up a mock scenario of a million dollars in gross receipts And we apply that million dollars in gross receipts to all of the tax classifications that pay based on gross receipts, that's the class B, the class F, and the class D. And we found that that would be roughly proportional, again very rough average, but roughly proportional to around 4,000 hours of payroll hours for a medical practice. And then we go how the taxes align with that. Next slide please. So what we will see here, if you look at the et's access of this heart, that is basically just millions of dollars in gross receipts. So the one represents $1 million in gross receipts and the nine goes up to $9 million in gross receipts and the nine goes up to $9 million in gross receipts. And we have the different business classifications and what they would pay under that gross receipts scenario. As you will see the green bar which is the class act that's our commercial property rental tax that is far and away the highest tax that gets paid. It's actually a little bit over 2% of gross receipts and that far outpaces all of our other tax classifications. The class B in blue is generally the retail and restaurants, they'll see that tends to be one of the, well, the lowest percentage of tax applied to gross receipts. Class C is thrown in red and what you will see there is that the class C, if we assume that around 4,000 payroll hours equates to a million dollars in gross receipts, a class C actually would pay more in tax revenue than a comparably gross in retail operation. Next slide please. So, as I noted, under those business tax scenarios, the various gross receipts were provided to the constant rate that would be received by the city. And what the graph shows really is that classes B, T, and D generally result in a comparable revenues to the city, although again that the class C tends to outpace the class B. Next slide, please. So as we look at taxes that the city has collected over the years for different uses, it really is difficult to isolate all of the income from medical uses or do an Apple's apples comparison. Information that we don't have from medical uses in particular is the amount of square footage that individual businesses may occupy and of course we don't know what their gross receipts may be. What one office may gross with 4,000 payroll hours, maybe vastly above or below what another office may gross with 4,000 hours worth of payroll hours. But as I mentioned, we did do some real-life comparisons to try to see where businesses might fall. The other thing I will note is that medical uses could contribute taxes in other cost occasions such as retail sales for one. We know that a lot of them medical offices do a small amount of retail sales whether it's creams or other things that they sell. The other thing that's important to keep in mind is the commercial space rental tax, that's the class F. As we showed on the graph, the commercial space rental tax, that's the class F. And we showed on the graph the commercial space rental tax generates a very significant amount of income for the city relative to the other taxes that we collect because medical uses typically rent at higher rates per square foot, that would also correspond to higher commercial space rental taxes on those same uses. What we know from speaking with brokers is that medical offices tend to produce around a 15 to 20 percent premium over general office spaces that would correspond to a 15 to 20 percent increase in the rental tax that we collect. As of November of this year, we had just over 1400 medical businesses registered under the Class T taxes and that's out of a total of 2,035 businesses. So 70 percent of our class, the businesses are comprised of medical. When we came to you last time, we had much more cursory information and we believed that the medical taxes didn't really represent a corresponding amount of taxes relative to what the percentage of medical is in the city. As we've been able to look more closely at this, we actually found that about $3.7 million of our class C tax revenue comes from medical uses and that translates to 64% of the It's an average of around $2600 per business. And really what this goes is that the amount of taxes paid by medical is roughly proportional to the number of medical businesses that make up the class C classification. So it's not as much of a disparity as I think what we have perhaps thought over the years. Next slide please. As I've touched on when we set out on-frying to identify some of this tax information, we actually did conduct some physician outreach. I didn't just try to get a better perspective on what the taxes might be that they would pay if they were paying under the gross-the-scenes model and how the taxes might affect them as a business. What we found in talking with some providers is they disclosed that their position was that the tax structure that we have currently is probably much more likely to benefit providers with high incomes, particularly high gross receipts. Most of the smaller practices, especially sole practitioners, found that the tax structure was not really insensitive to them and in most cases, the smaller offices actually would pay less in taxes if they were taxed under the gross receipts structure as opposed to our payroll hours. I know I made comments at our last meeting looking at my wife's dental practice and if you were to pay under the gross receipts model, if you would pay close to five pounds less in taxes than what you pay is under the payroll hours model and we look at a few others beyond that. The other thing that we found interesting was that most providers indicated that the tax structure in their mind was not an incentive or disincentive to locate in Beverly Hills. It represents that the small percentage of their overhead that it really wasn't a consideration in deciding whether Beverly Hills was where they wanted to operate. Next slide please. So taking a look sort of a snapshot, what our medical offices look like in the city. We talked about this last time, but as of 2011, we had about 1.35 million square feet of medical office floor area, which represents about 20% of our commercial floor area in the city. Since that time, we've only added 40,000 square feet of medical area, and that was the result of the one overlay zone at Wilshire and Robertson. We've had to choose some brokers that are involved in office leasing to get their perspective on the current situation and what might happen if their teams make the ordinance. They generally reported that Beverly Hills is a desirable location from a marketing and branding opportunity because it really represents to the rest of the world that this is a premier care that is provided here because it's a world class city. The most health care providers are very little negotiating power when it comes to looking at office space in the city because of the limited supply, but that a lot of people have formed group physician practices to help offset the higher costs of the medical buildings. They've also reported that right now there is a need for additional space due to social distancing as a result of COVID and providers have been trying to adapt in the way that they see patients, the way appointments are spaced out, the way waiting rooms function. We also found that there were varying opinions on what the potential effect of changing the regulations would be some thought that changing the regulations to be less restrictive would help to balance out the rental rates and provide a more competitive market. And then others also felt that it may sort of not reduce the rates but sort of have it plateau a little bit because when you look at medical offices they are typically more expensive to build out from a engine improvement standpoint. Usually you're talking about more involved plumbing and electrical systems, perhaps ventilation, and also specializing equipment that goes into those spaces. So there are added costs that typically get shared between both the landlord and the medical provider. Next slide. provider. Next slide. One of the things that they counsel asked us to do was report back with information on how other surrounding cities treat medical offices. So I'm going to run through the some of our neighbors here real quickly in West Hollywood medical uses are permitted in most commercials without any special approvals. Their parking rate is 3 spaces per thousand square feet, which is on par with our general commercial office-based parking requirement. Their taxes are based on gross receipts there. However, their tax structure is lower than our class F&D businesses, but higher than our class B. One thing you'll find as I go through the different phases, there's sort of all over we offer higher taxes than some and lower taxes than other, others in different categories so a little bit all over the map, but just to provide the comparisons. Next slide. In Colors City, medical uses are permitted in most of the commercial zones, again, without any special operations. The parking requirement is one space for 350 square feet, with his identical to the general office parking rate in Beverly Hills. They tax medical based on growth receipts as well, and their tax agent structure is lower than our class FNT, but higher than our class B. Next slide. Stannionica, medical uses are permitted within their health care district without any special approvals or in other areas with a CUP. Their medical parking rate is one space or 300 square feet for the first 1000 square feet, and then it goes to one space per 250 square feet after that. So their parking requirements are just a little more stringent than our general office requirements, but more relaxed than our current medical working requirements. From that exact same standpoint, they as well are grossly seeds, and their facts are higher than our class B and E, but lower than our class F. Next slide. One thing we thought was interesting and just wanted to note for the council Santa Monica has actually adopted some interim provisions in response to COVID. They have actually relaxed their restrictions related to street frontings for medically uses, and they are also allowing for a 10-part care space credit to allow for medical spaces and buildings that don't have the otherwise sufficient amount of parking. Their total building floor area in the city based on hospitals alone is 1.33 million square feet. As I noted in Beverly Hills, we're about 1.35 million, but that's for all of our medical. Next slide, please. So as part of this process, this is a second and an urgency ordinance. There are no public notice requirements that we did provide a courtesy-mailed notice to all commercial property owners in the city. We provided an email blast to all of our business tax registrants that we have emails for. We've maintained a list of insisted parties and then we also did some outreach with the Chamber of Commerce through their newsletter. Next slide. What we have put together in terms of a draft urgency ordinance for your review and comment, you know, we've tried to be responsive and address of the comments. We heard it's the last meeting. The first thing would be that this would be for a limited one year period again in response to COVID and trying to help balance out our commercial business environment. The relaxation if adopted would apply to most of our commercial zones. The one notable exception is that the C5 zone is not included. That is the former industrial area and that area is really reserved for an energy and meant type office uses. We don't allow medical there today and we have not generally allowed it in the past either. So we've excluded that. The parking requirement, we're recommending that that be reduced to our general commercial rate, which is one space for every 350 square feet. This would allow most of our general commercial space in the city to be converted to medical without providing additional parking. As I've noted, most of our buildings in the city are built at the 1 to 350 rate. It's nearly nearly impossible except for a few of the sets in the city to provide a dismal parking on site that's not already encountered by some other use. The other thing that the ordinance would do is exclude certain medical uses from being able to take advantage of it. We heard that there was concern about surgery centers, and so we have excluded what are defined in the municipal code as specialty clinics, which includes surgery centers as defined by the state. This is to really try and keep this two more of the general practice in urge. And as specialists, the ones that I'm providing, surgical care, we've prohibited medical uses on the ground floor and the other thing that we've added, which is always important, is a requirement that anybody doing a conversion actually presents to the city a lease with the medical tenant and that that tenant have an active business license registration on file with the city. We were concerned that there might be speculation from property owners where they can divert space without actually having a medical tenant on board to occupy that and so to avoid the speculation we're trying to ensure that there would be a legitimate medical use that's going into the space. Next slide, please. A couple of things that the council talked about that we have not included at this time was a question about whether or not we should include a citywide cap on the floor area of medical space. As we looked at this more closely, we were concerned that this might create some of the same as it is that exist today with the restrictions on medical offices. And more than that, there may be a rife to try to convert as much office space as possible to medical if people feel like they will miss out if they're not first in line as we wanted to try to avoid that scenario from happening. The Council also talked about what types of medical would be desires to be allowed under this ordinance. We have not included a definition on the types of physicians. The main thing we did is exclude the surgery centers and other specialty clinics. Again, as we look more closely at this, the recommendation is that it's not really practical to enforce different types of medical practices. A lot of even the offices that specialize in one field or another, those are the systems that still also qualify as general practitioners and staff is not qualified to, you know, want review and understand the types of procedures that are being offered. And I think in most cases, HIPAA regulations would prevent the disclosure of the types of treatments that are being offered to individuals. So this is something that is not included at this time. But again, we have excluded the surgery centers as we talked about at the last meeting. Next slide please. So yes, the council were to adopt the ordinance in a fast and similar to what's presented, we do think this would make it easier for medical uses to establish within the city. It may help to correct or balance out some of the unintended impacts to the chronic leasing structure that have resulted from our chronic regulations. We think this would still maintain our pedestrian street speed because we are keeping the medical uses out of the ground floor. There are as noted potential fiscal impacts as it pertains to the varying structures of tax revenue. Although, again, we think in most cases medical offices would pay an equivalent amount or more than comparable general offices, except when you compare to some of the brokerage and other types of offices. But, again, the goal here would be that medical offices are not displacing existing tenants within the city, but rather filling vacancies that otherwise might persist with the COVID situation. Next slide, please. So the recommendation is to conduct the study session to review the information and proposed regulations, provide any direction to staff. We do have this on your formal agenda this evening for consideration of the urgency ordinance. If there are minor changes, we would try to make those changes in between study session and formal session to have that for you this evening. And if there are more significant changes or not interest to proceed with this, then we would of course pull that from tonight's agenda that concludes my presentation and we're happy to answer any questions you have. We'll say to the right excellent report and we can go to public comments. Yes, we give a public comment. The first one is from our standard show. Hi, thank you very much, all council members. That was a great presentation. We have a healthcare service that is for addiction and mental health. So we at law, we were non-profit. We were operating in Beverly Hills at 329 North Weatherly for about last 10 years. During the pandemic we did no longer afford a maintenance at that office space. And so we looked around for the cohort during the speech, because all of our sessions have been provided by an entry to the health services. What we provide for substance use and mental health services are educational and climate standards, individual and group therapy. When we applied for the co-working, I mean, for the examining approval from an annual co-working place, we were denied as a social should be, for mental health services, for free to be under a medical use. I even know a lot of life since the state, or the financial at the state, prevents us from providing any medical service. Since I wanted to obtain this in advance, because I was informed by the assistant planner that this may be an opportunity to encourage the senator to pass the emergency ordinance to the level of medical use and more building. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Michael Keller. Here's the way out. Thank you. Mayor and council member for considering this. Like Captain Mike Bell, I have provided over 30 years of commercial real estate service to real estate community in Beverly Hills and majority that has just been medical-easing. I think this is a good pharmacy ordinance that it granted but the one thing I'd like to comment on is the one year bit. I think it's way too short. I believe that the trend line on our pandemic is to be accelerated. I don't think we're gonna be out of this in enough time to use this ordinance effectively and verbally hills. So look at the time table it takes to put together a medical office lease in building and verbally hills, there's generally is a little bit longer time table than you're traditionally office lease. The process is identifying the space. It's doing a light out on a perspective stage. It involves getting the technical components to that space for the medical professional together, plans get put together, they get bid, people are cost-to-runsists, there's a lease that has to get me go seated in this process and then I have to go into the city for a permit, which is, you know, it's a little bit sore today to be sitting in the past, just because of the way in which we interface. There's a little bit of counter like there used to be. So the reality is it can take as much as eight, nine minutes to physically build out a space, which means you've got three months to do it at the start of this process. And by the time it's done, you might have a very limited amount of medical space. So I want to encourage this special study session to consider as much as two years of time for this ordinance. I think we're being so excited on the one year time table to which people were talking about. I did hear that we have to have a least completed, and I think that's a good idea in order to get the permit. So there's just a lot of processes that are required. And I think that if we take a really good look at those processes, what we can implement on a complex in one year is rather minimal. I think it would be wise to rethink between table that we're gonna consider as some form. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yola. You're welcome. We have one. We have one, your victim public comment on this. I am. Is anyone going ahead? Yes. This comment comes from Orna Wollins. My name is Orna Wollins and I'm an owner of 875-0 Wilshire Boulevard. We encourage the City Council to adopt the urgency ordinance from modifying medical use. Our building at 875-0 Wilshire Boulevard is already partially le from modifying medical use. Our building at 850, Wilshire Boulevard is already partially leased from medical use and has a requisite parking spaces. As the city council knows, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on traditional office leasing. We've witnessed a substantial decline in the demand for commercial office space. We respectfully request the city council to allow the vacant space at 875-0, which will be available to be converted to medical use as you are seeing it continue to demand and need for medical office leasing. We are concerned that a per building limit on medical square footage above the ground floor would create difficulty. We have seen in our building that traditional office tenants are wary of renting space in a building that has medical tenants, especially in these pandemic times. We understand that when the original ordinance was established, the primary issue was traffic. And stated above, we have the requisite parking spaces and people now have alternative means of transportation. Additionally, with social distancing and offices and people working from home, the traffic is much less and parking lots are not close to capacity. Converting existing traditional office space to medical space will bring more tenants to vibrancy and tax income to Beverly Hills. Thank you. This is the end Ian the coming. We have one more comment from Kenan. Kenan, if you want to go ahead, Kenan Wallet. How high is this for now, Wallet? This is for Red Mine statement. Thank you. I just wanted to add to that that I do think that there is a lot of merit to having our world-class city of Beverly Hills be a local or excellent medical care. I think it's a draw for the city. And I think it will bring a great deal of medical tourism, which is only a positive. So thank you very much for your consideration. And we are really grateful that the City Council that may are free men, that vice mayor, one of us, and that our City Council members, nearest, bossy, and gold are taking this, this economic situation very seriously. So thank you, we're off. this economic situation very seriously so thank you. Thank you. I conclude public comment on this item. Okay so we will close public comment and go to council member questions and comments. There were ways on such kind or, I think that there was a way, I'm not happy to go, but I didn't know if we wanted to do the liaison comments first. But was there a liaison since we've been discussing it? I mean, I know a liaison, I believe brought it to us, but I don't know if it's a last final liaison on St. John's to the nation. Wow. Now, Julie, actually, what you're seeing today is a reflection of the direction that we gave at the last week. Yeah, I do that. I just don't know. I don't know if it's that. And, OK. Great. So I'm happy to go. So first off, I think that this is timely. Perhaps we might have considered earlier, but certainly it's timely. We've all seen the end of the vacant spaces. I think it's real concern to all of us. And so I think this is timely. I also think that the current ordinance has created unintended consequences. And certainly in the communities I know, there's a lot of concern that even in the COVID times, landlords have not been willing to negotiate because they know that the medical groups, the physician groups are truly a captive audience because there's no place to go. So we have the fact of creating a monopoly. Maybe that was an intended maybe. It was an unintended consequence. But nonetheless, I don't think it has served. No one has a many of served well. Other people would be just in medical space. So I really do think that Mrs. is timely and something important to do. Specifically with regard to the recommendations here in the long way, I may have a couple of questions. I agree that we should allow it in commercial areas. I agree we should reduce the parking requirements to our general commercial requirements. I agree that we should not allow the removal of parking, which is one of the recommendations in order to accomplish this. I think it's important to just spend a moment when we talk about it, so the slaves are a doctor. I agree with the staff report, and I just want to to underscore that I don't think that it matters. For me when I was having this conversation before, this is really to discuss people who are in practice, even if they have small procedural rooms that any general surgeons do, where they can move a little lump or bump or things like that, as compared to the surgery centers. certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain certain room centers and more than anything they generated a lot more money than you would expect from the average practitioner. And so I don't come to the taxes piece in a moment but I really do think that it doesn't much matter what kind of physician I don't think it matters if one physician practice will buy himself for their 10 physicians in the office. I think that all of that should be allowed. And again the only piece here is the surgery centerpiece. Now, right into you, what exactly is a medical clinic? That is not a surgery center. In the case of icing your friends at the specialty clinic, yeah, what is that? So a specialty clinic is defined in the code as one surgery center as defined by the state. And then two, it is also sleep disorder centers where they perform surgeries to correct sleep disorders and then it's or similar facilities to that. Well, that's pretty specific. That was defined by the state. The state has a definition for surgical clinics, which is what we have always, I think, when we use the from surgery centers, those generally fall within the state's definition of a surgery clinic. Okay. So, and that's how we have, we regulated them in the past. When we did the medical ordinance back in 2011, we had to special restrictions on these surgery centers but again it refers back to the definition that we have in our zone code regarding these clinics as defined by the state. Well I can imagine we're going to have a huge increase in the number of sleep sleep study centers and I to see keep going too late to that, in which case we'll all be in a state study set. But so I'm really not so concerned about those. I think that the real concern was for the Surge Center, and only for the fact that, and this is the point where the taxation issue becomes more important, they could and were and may still be generating a lot more money than you would expect from the average practitioner. That said, I do think that I appreciate Ryan. The efforts he went to try and compare taxation currently versus what it could be under gross receipts. I think your conclusion is correct. At the end, it's pretty much a walk. I think it's impossible to decipher. Not including, again, the searchers' center share, but I think amongst the private practitioners and things like that, I think that it's probably not going to be significant and I don't know for me. I will say that for me, it's not a defining piece of this legislation. I do think that a year maybe short, I think two years is probably better, but you know along the way if we were to say two years clearly, if whatever reason we became uncomfortable with what was going on, I think we could adjust it. So I would probably agree to start it at two years. So for all of that, I agree with this deprecation. So the place I'd like to spend the moment is to kind of focus on this definition of medical because I know we as council have had this conversation before, and I consent that our current definition of medical is either being interpreted or is intentionally designed to be very narrow. Or actually very broad, and the exceptions are very narrow. So for instance, as we go forward, and this specifically relates to the ground floor piece of this, I don't think that we need doctors' offices on the ground floor. I'm okay with that. But I do think that in a world of wellness and a well-being and therapies that are not clearly in my opinion medical, now the limit are opportunities if we're not clear in what we intend by that definition. So, I mean, you could, if you wanted, torture this to say that yoga is medical. You know, what's the difference if you have a chiropractor in some sort of clinic, which would be medical, or the other same sort of clinic is a gym of some sort, no gyms are regulated separately, but technically the difference between having a chiropractor there or some other professional in a gym, I think is candidly not very different for our purposes. And I don't know that we have the energy today to do this, but I do think that, and I'm content to move this ordinance along without that. But I do think that we are a little, we need to be clear or, and we need to understand what the world of wellness is going to look like. And we need to ensure that our definition of medical does not impede our ability to have those things which I think are important for our community in which I think are our community needs. So may I those in my comments? I'm okay with this. I think the only thing perhaps different is two years as opposed to one. The other thing too, I would like to see what the impact of having a tenant in the hand looks like. I understand the rationale for it. I understand that it's uncertain circumstances. It won't make sense. But I also think it's an interesting dynamic between the tenant, potential tenant and the landlord and with the broker in the middle where I'm not going to agree to this, it becomes a negotiating point for the rent. And if that's the intent so that the rent becomes more negotiated, perhaps that's a good thing, but you can certainly see where the need to have a tenant and a lot of leverage over the landlord. Just just want to put it out there. We can try and see how it goes. So those are my comments and I'm happy to move this along. So the Samaritan refrigists intervene. We have an urgent ordinance on the agenda tonight, so we don't have the kind of flexibility to make it eight, two-year ordinance. Actually, tonight it would be a 45-day ordinance, followed at the end of that 45-day, and it's by an ordinance for clasps and most. 10 months and 15 days, which combined with the 45 days, amounts ordinance for class and most 10 months and 15 days which combined with the 45 days amounts to one year. But that would be the most of what we can do with an ordinance that's on the agenda tonight. If you wanted to do it to your ordinance, that would think they evolved across that. Okay. Well, I'm okay with that. I don't want to slow this down. Thank you. I'm okay with that. I don't want to slow this down. Thank you. And, Dr. Lerros. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank Ryan and Sam. Thank you for having an exceptional job with this ordinance and really addressing all the comments that you had heard from the City Council and from callers and emails and such. I really appreciate the extent of analysis that you provide in stores. And I de-support the ordinance. I do want to call out that I do agree with the fact that we should not be separating between different types of doctors and primary care physicians. I agree with that as well as not placing a specific cap at this point. And what I do want to ask about though is, I know that we are going to monitor whoever takes advantage of that of disordinates within the next year. So my question is how will we monitor it? We would be able to monitor it through our permitting system where we track records of the permits we issue and really notating the type of permit if it's for a medical conversion that would allow us to report back to the council at any point regarding whether the ordinance is working or not. So anybody who currently has an office building right now and they are going to based on this ordinance fill office space with a medical tenant, they are required to fill something out with the city and us that will be ultra monitored. It would be required to obtain a permit in, in pretty much all cases that I can think of through that permitting process that would be our documentation. Okay, great. Larry, in terms of the fact that this ordinance is for a year, as we hit close to the end of the year, and we look at the advantages and disadvantages of this of the year, at that point, if we choose to have another year extended, can we do it then? Yes, you can add another year, but that's the last one that will be in that for two years. And then you have to either adopt a permanent ordinance or abandon the sort of, or the murderous ordinance for the last and that for two years. OK. Another question for you, Larry. I think Brian did a great job in terms of showing us with different types based and central and also comparing it to other cities. As we analyze the medical impacts of his particular ordinance, is there an ability if we want to look at the tax base as well? During this time and then when we bring it back, depending on analysis, look at the taxes as well. During this time and then when we bring it back, depending on analysis, look at the taxes as well. So let me answer and if this is in your question, please restate it. But yeah, we can look at the tax base. We can't identify the individual tax errors, but we can look at medical uses and determine yes or no, you know, one step near an excuse me, you know, what they contribute to the tax base. Was that your question? Yes, and if we wanted to, you know, again, I'm not saying that I'm not obtaining for it, but if at some point we want to make any changes, is that something we're able to do? On sites that tax are you mean? The tax is a little. Well, for example, right now, we have middle creeps under class C and that means. Explain. Yeah. So, if you want to make a change to taxes, we can increase any tax that would require a load of people. Okay, you know, do that yourself, you have to submit that to the people. So, anything that's an increase would have to vote anything that's a decrease, anything that's a decrease. We're free to do that. Okay. So, you know, from my perspective, I feel that this is actually quite a bit over you, you know, the particular medical regulations that we have in place, we're putting place 31 years ago, and the current ordinance that we have in place, we put putting place 31 years ago. And the current ordinance that we have in place, we put in place nine years ago. And I was on the planet here somewhere where we had many meetings today, in fact. And as the stated earlier, a lot of the concerns was the traffic, the parking, the focus on wanting to have more pedestrian, or engine businesses, the concern of handicapped placards and also the talk space and implications. But I think this last year has really come to us. The world has changed and we are changing. Even with when we put this ordinance in place, I mean years ago we didn't even have large hair. I think that we have recognized that health and wellness is a tremendous priority to our city. I do very much feel about that medical use should not be on the ground floor. That is the emphasis what is what our rules and we see an actual better general plan calls out for in terms of you know, vibrancy and pedestrian experience. So I'm happy that this ordinance is not allowing for that. And you know, I think that this will jumpstart both our medical economy as well as our pedestrian, our residential and our business academy, now more than ever. So I am very much support this and I'm happy that this is before us. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. And I have a lot of memories. Thank you. So what we sort out with what I think is a good idea. I think the good and the key is that it excludes certain race centers. Because I think that we understand that they have a tremendous turnover in losing the digital commercial space for certain race centers. What does that mean that the city would be losing a substantial note of money? That means that what is the regulation over night stage? Would we be allowing with the expansive other places where patients would be allowed to spend the night, if you will, maybe less than 24 hours, but where they would be able to spend the night. Just over here, if we do have existing regulations on overnight stays in the code, generally overnight stays are prohibited. There is a process you can go through a special period process to get what's called an overnight state permit. Depending on the nature of the request, some of those are reviewed at the director level and some go to the planning commission, but it's pretty rare that we received those requests. I would say it tends to be at most one or two per year and some years we don't get any. Even if we have a ethical matter, John just as a practical matter, those overnight stays are usually connected with searchers. Again, we have a situation where someone died and we're jumped off a building after that. Was that an connection with an overnight stay? Yeah, and it's urgent. And that was a surgery. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we heard from staff that the initial ordinance and the revised one may have had negative impacts or unintended consequences or that it hasn't kept up with the times. And meanwhile, I think there may be some things to be tweaked. I think the main purpose of it was to ensure that we have a balance of the issues within the state. And I think that Ryan correct me if I'm wrong, that the percentage of medical has not gone down from the initial, not so from the initial, but certainly from the more recent one, nine years ago it's seen as correct. It has and that I think is generally a function of the demand and also landlords not wanting to lose the ability to have medical if they're least doing non-medical tenant. So I think that you could argue that absolutely the ordinance was very successful and that it kept something at a 20% or for a little bit above 20% rate and that absolutely was the intent and that it did make sense. I understand if there are issues because of limitations that prices are higher than they could be perhaps for, that there's one owner that has to watch market power. The way to address that, I would suggest would be through anti-sus provisions. And I think that's certainly something that we can instead look at. That being said, I do feel that the report was a little bit biased and speculative and that staff in some cases can just put their thumb on the scale, but actually sound on the scale while marching twiggy. And I look at some sort of language in here that they put it in, you know, about how likely they can serve you stats rather than it is possible and it does all. This is all highly speculative. And, you know, you look at the charts and I see the same kind of, what, you know, being a baseball fan, I mean to something known as saber metrics, but there's all sorts of things you can do. Now, maybe the people who wrote the reports to see if they could be the agents for job leaders and kick-aidered and as they were free agents, but they probably be able to say that they are more valuable than Jackie Robbins and Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig Alt put together. So I have, again, I'm not disagreeing with all of the things, but I do feel the way it was presented was friendship. You know, we got best and worst-based scenarios that I don't take balance to get us to what the original intent was of the ordinance. That being said, as I think, you know, the main issue is that I think we would see if we didn't exclude certain extent of what we would like to see a large increase in them. Now, we also have to remember that in applying for a additional medical space, we're looking for a public benefit. And now, this ordinance would mean that we would not know it is for public benefits beyond the notes in that medical is useful. And we saw comparisons to West Hollywood and Castro, to Culver City instead of on it. And my question will be, what is the percentage of commercial space in West Hollywood that is medical? I don't have that information and what we've found is because most cities don't separately regulate medical. They don't have information information and what we've found is because most cities don't separately regulate medical. They don't have information on the allocation of medical space. Well, LA knows. And certainly we know what it is in LA. And if you do now, you can't find LA. I'd like the same information for Culver City and Santa Monica. So I don't know we talk about apples to apples from paracens. If there are states of 7% commercial commercial space medical and we're at 22 and you know that could go up even more. I think that's the consideration that we need to look at. Yes indeed you know right now we've folded and all of that might understand that but I think it's our job to be thinking very long term as well and beyond and try to balance those interests. You know when you look at the $1 million sort of job to be thinking very long-term as well and be honest, try to balance those interests. You know, when you look at the $1 million sort of strong hand, a helculation you made, we always talk about throwing darts, million bucks is throwing darts. I mean, it's just, as I said, I mean, I think we need to have better and more detail economic analysis. That being said, you know, if this is a shorter term thing where we can then go back and look at things, I think that's important. But one thing I did take out of this is that, you know, we talked about talent agencies and real estate agencies that the real estate agencies have the potential to generate ten times the income for the city of a medical practice. Is that a correct figure? You can talk about the Thanksgiving comparison on a class of F. Let me say what we're, because the class of F is the commercial rental taxes. Okay, Evan, it says here, they started information provided by the finance department. The real estate broke before and again, the generation was maintained for the revenue of the medical office, which was slightly higher than the jazz revenue, the movie production office retail space. You know, being said also, they speculate in that some of the, some of the patients would go on to purchase things in our stores or go to restaurants. I'm guessing that depends on the severity of the illness. But art talent agents, we have talent agents. Aren't they major customers of our restaurant base? They take their clients there and they maybe go shopping. Wouldn't that be the same or even more if we add more talent agencies and that sort of thing? And maybe that's the ritual requested, but I think the answer is pretty clear. And so if you're going to speculate that patients are going to go shopping, then I think you also look at the reality of, and I know my brother and wife are an agent, that when you're able to go and when things get back normal, they're among the highest users of the rest from them and stopping as well. So one of the things I know is that we're looking at reducing parking requirements, and I think that's okay in theory. But I think in theory because we hear from some the landlord that there is parking in a building that we sit out for as we've asked in the past for free validated parking. I think that's important if we want to avoid people circling around or that sort of thing. If there are people who are still gonna use the free lofts and that's one thing. But I know that we've always suggested that at least certain kinds of medical are more intensively and used to this and create more traffic. And I don't think that's being considered at all. You didn't do a traffic study at all, did you? No. Okay. So the main traffic has always been one of the major impacts. And to open the door without, I have a problem with not tapping it and I'll tell you why. We can maybe tap it at a higher level, but this is sort of no-sign that, you know, that the link to a flood of applications, if we operate it on a first-come, first-served basis that it provides an unfair damage, well, the alternative is to don't happen. And you do still have a flood wave of applications. And let's say that the medical percentage goes from 20 or 22 to 30 or 35. It's impossible that you can control. And especially if there are impacts that we have to look at, such as traffic, you know, unless you're going to demand a traffic study, however, as said, one way of maybe dealing with it is to demand validated parking for all customers to avoid that. We haven't considered the other implications at all. I mean, not looking at traffic when medical use has traditionally been associated with an intensification of traffic, which is still out into the neighbor, but it's not just in the triangle we're talking about, but in parts of the southeast as well. I think without having control over that, it's a big problem. And personally, I do think that if we're looking to, you know, encourage primary physicians, I think you definitely can say what's between them and certain kinds of perhaps plastic surgeons or whatever. I do think that if we're trying to encourage small practices, which I think make a lot of sense, then we really could use the ordinance to try and achieve those results. Again, the whole point is about trying to maintain a balance and not seeing the right downward situation that creates something that although COVID hopefully will be dealt with in a year or two, hopefully things will go back to some sort of words of normal, and we haven't thought, thought, thought be on that. And so from my perspective, that's something that we can and should be doing. And definitely we should look at the economics of it. I agree we should continue to do that, but not looking at the traffic impacts. You know, parking, reducing parking, I understand why we're doing it. It's kind of an experiment. The data we're going to reduce it to throw the medical incentives used to the rest of retail. But it's a theory. You know, it's a theory because in the past people may not have taken rights here, but some of our seniors may indeed have taken the cities services that we provide or taxis or whatever. And nonetheless, there was a need for a certain amount of parking. And so to me again, this isn't just, I'd be willing to look at a final aid pilot program, but I'll say I think we're not considering the long-term impact in the long-term implications of this, which could create an imbalance that we won't be able to take and vote that in the long run we recognize that our sweet spot or much of our sweet spot is not just the real estate, brokerage is, but the talent agencies and anything that has to do with entertainment usage. And one other thing I think that creates some of the problems that we've heard from Julian is the notion of triple net rents. Well, a sign of, you know, you look at what's in our soul and their property taxes skyrocketed because they were reassessed from the old rates net for that regard. Yes, friend, but you know that charges triple net, the taxes are proportioned out to the tenants and one of the property sells unless there is a protection in the lease from an increase in tax assessment and that increase has passed on to the tenants. But it is there that's triple rate rate is not something that we so least see when it comes to medical use. It isn't that a very common form of rental agreement that we see in all kinds of commercial uses in Beverly Hills. It's something that you see in high-demand areas, in a lot of places, people can get away with charging simple net, but in Beverly Hills they can, in a lot of instances. Right, as I've stated, Beverly Hills, I think Circle Net is not an informative course. When you get to get a building free set to a higher transfer rate, and that was passed on as part of the circle net, that's part of the problem too, and I don't think what we're looking at necessarily alleviates that or deals with that. Anyway, to the case, my feeling is that I would like to see us maintain a balance that's very open to the idea of time something of allowing it, but I don't think you know, I don't think we need to control it. And you know, I just think it is important to maybe get a monthly report or whatever it is or any time actually there is an increase so we can see where it is. I think it would be in interest to count, but less than we count it at 25%. That's still a huge, you know, you can run if we have it. How many swear feet are there in medical space currently? 1.39. Yeah, if you have it 260,000 or some level like that, that's a significant amount. And the notion that you have to have at least, I some level like that, that's a significant amount. And the notion that you actually have to have a lease, I think I do agree with that. I think that makes sense to not have people just speculatively do that. But the notion that we're just going to open up the floodgates and have no control, I don't think that's the long-term interest of the city, especially not knowing the traffic impacts in the right-of-setter, but absolutely no traffic settings done. This could create some major traffic impacts, and while I would be willing to look at reducing the parking requirements and closely monitoring it, as we said, we would do for the retail. And of course, we may not get an ill until things start to get back to normal, the impacts of that to continually monitor that. And then to see what the right feeling is. Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I think everybody. Okay, thank you. And we'll go through a question of what to look at. Thank you. Anyways, some of the reasons why we're interested in doing this is some of the things that we hear, we hear about the shortage of medical space, we hear about violence and events increasing. We actually know that, you know, for example, do we know what the vaccine rate is from medical space versus the vaccine rate or the vector space versus the vacancy rate by the net to space in barely hills or in other cities. Is there, in fact, a lower vacancy rate than medical space in barely hills compared with other cities, than is that unusual or is that typical for strategies as well? I don't have information on the current vacancy rates. The only thing I can tell you is my personal experience when my wife was looking to move for practice here, and this was five years ago, I think, and at that time, there were many, many more non-medical spaces available than medical with memory serves. I think there were, I think, four or five medical spaces that she's from in all of the city. So it was pretty fun thinking. I had a bad idea of the question about rents. I think the health is a great location. So it wouldn't be odd if rents in Beverly Hills were higher than some other places, but you really have to look at the different places. For example, if office space and Beverly Hills aside, they hire in other places, do medical rents, stand at is being greater than that differential between office space and Beverly Hills for space somewhere else. So we do know the answer to that. I don't know the answer. The only thing I would say is I think it's very market specific. Again, most cities don't regulate medical separately, The only thing I would say is I think it's very market-specific. Again, most cities don't regulate medical separately, so you would expect the rates to be generally on par with general commercial. The one exception is that the tenant improvements for medical generally cost more, and landlords tend to give a tenant improvement to allowance to their tenants, so that tenant improvement to allowance might cost the landlord more. Therefore, they charge more over the long term for their rents. Although if you look even at general offices, there are some of the high-rise buildings in Century City. I'm not sure about now with COVID, but in the past, those office spaces tend to be getting much higher rents than our general offices and Beverly Hills. Right, so the real question is, it wouldn't be odd if medical space is more expensive, but is it more expensive to the same degree as other spaces or is it really reflecting or short of general space? Would we have the ability to start tracking information like that, to start tracking information like that? To start tracking, they can see rates by type of commercial entity by a rent type identity. I'm not sure that we is the city or equipped to track that information, but we do subscribe to a company called Toastar, To CoastStar Operates, at least nationally. They may have a global presence right now. I'm not saying that we would collect it ourselves, but we're relying on information that's available for listings that are from brokerage or from information about actual rents. I think it would be good for us to exactly where you would be good to know. Here's the baseline to rent. We have an ordinance like this in place where that comes to rent. It would be good to know. And that's just to this narrow question. It would be good to know. And we're vacancy rates by type of entity, our rents by type of entity. So we have a ongoing basis, and we're close to what's happening. Yeah, a lot of information you're available through KMOSAR. So I would recommend an ongoing basis if we are collecting that kind of information then to distribute it a little bit more. So at least that we have their perspectives on what's happening with different types of vacancies and what's happening with those rates. So in general, on the positive side of this, I do think that there is a logic that I agree with, which is that medical use can be more economically resilient. I mean, the general, I think they can be more resilient post-pandemic when there are increasing concerns about what's going to be happening to the office market. And I'll look at that based on my anecdotal information that we've had that there reasonable possibilities that there were shortage in reduced rent increases in high rents in Beverly, North. On the negative side, we've had concerns about the concentration in the medical sector, concerns about on street ambiance that were mitigating that by preserving the ground floor as not a medical use. And concerns have been cited about the tax impact. I don't know, but we had a variety of good presentation on that. We've had information about that before. I think the impacts are not clear. Could be a loss at least to me that that's not the primary consideration here. We do have concerns about traffic and parking impacts. I think the changes in our lives may mitigate that somewhat, but on the other hand, I think it's also realistic that there can be some traffic in parking concerns that remain with greater medical uses. We have a list of where this would apply, and there's quite a few different designations of commercial zoning. So where for the commercial sectors with this monopoly, you mentioned C5 corresponding to the former industrial area. Are there any other commercial areas in which this ordinance been done? You only other commercial areas to where this would not apply is where we have the specific plans. So like the Beverly Hilton formal robbers is made side, the Mayborn hotel property. Those are really the only ones that it would not apply. I guess it's in this basically would be with one exception to former industrial area, it would apply to all commercial areas. Correct. Let's see, a question about the proposed ordinance that I have for this one, let me reiterate this, that question for Larry, if we look at some specific language in the ordinance. And what to be presented to us tonight, but I'm looking at the language in paragraph B4 and paragraph T, which is both specified to what extent ground floor medical uses would be allowed and the two paragraphs differ. So you can just talk a little bit about what this paragraph before applied to, what this paragraph G applied to and why is there the difference in whether or not any ground floor medical use would be allowed? So I think I can actually cover that one. I'm familiar with B4 is actually existing in code language with noxions. And we can, there, the existing medical ordinance has provisions where very, very limited provisions where you can convert space to medical office on the ground floor. But it is subject to certain criteria and I believe discretionary review. We have a chain of that and it's existing. Then when you get into the new regulations that we're proposing, it's basically an outright prohibition on ground floor. So somebody could still be ground floor if they fit within the narrow provisions of the existing code, but not with the exceptions that we're proposing. If that is clear enough. Well, it's annoying to that a little bit more. So sitting into the narrow restrictions of the existing code, going to that a little bit more, so fitting into the narrow restrictions of the existing code, that means that they had to have been a building that registered as a medical user or whatever that year was, and could add up to 6,000 slurpee. But that would now be subject to the new less parking requirement, right? That is correct. They would have to have been registered, they'd be limited to the 6000 sqft and they would not be under the reduced parking requirements that would be under the higher parking requirements of one space per 200. And as we order to convert is the threshold circumstance, if limiting circumstances and grant loaded to medical, they would have to conform with the need for any space that got converted once space could 200 to everything. If they follow our existing provisions under the current medical ordinance, it would be the one space for 200 square feet. The only exception is if they fit within the interim exceptions, that it would be one space for 350 square feet. But this would be in this space, so why would they fit under the, what our change would be? Why would they be bound by the old code? Only if they wanted to go on the ground floor because we're not offering an avenue to go on the ground floor under the infrared coordinates. So somebody absolutely wanted to go on the ground floor, the only way to do that is to show the art of the new party to provide, then you have to conform to the old code and the right. And so there's two ways in which currently medical space can be added. One would be for those registry buildings and it could be up to 6,000 square feet. It's a can provide parking at the one per 200 square foot standard. And by applying for medical overlays zone, what are the limitations of the medical overlays zone or are there, is there a limitation? Well, what are the limitations? I'll raise it like that and I'll turn it back to regulation. The biggest challenges that we've seen and why we've only had the one project to get approved so far is that number one, you do have to comply with the higher parking requirements. So the one space for 200 square feet, which most buildings cannot comply with. The other requirement is that you have to provide a public benefit for the conversion or use of the overlay zone and that creates a lot of uncertainty for people and I think for most has prevented them from applying. So we've been changing the parking requirement but they still have to be providing the public benefit to just to be applicable to the overlays, etc. If it was an overlay zone, yes. Although if the infermordness were to be adopted, I don't think that there would be a reason for somebody to try to get approval of the overlay zone unless they were trying to do a surgery center or something like that. So the overlay zone does still allow for surgery centers, whereas the infern more than this would not have potent. Thank you. Gio, what was the origin of the success in square feet? What was the thinking at the time? I think presumably it was related to some of the things that happened in the mirror, just saying about a fifth years of too great to great concentration, but the life success and strength even would actually work for the thinking of the fact. But I don't know the math behind how they arrived at 6,000 square feet, but the concept was we had buildings that were partially medical, medical tends to like to locate together and if a building already had medical and then sort of It was what was the harm and adding another 6,000 square feet. I just don't know how they land but almost 6,000 square feet. And how firmly grounded is the one space for two hundred three to three hundred and fifty square feet? I guess what I'm really standing here It's not just a this but when we're doing that restaurant and other businesses, we've been seeing that we need to revisit what actually our parking requirements are and to do a press study of what we think should be the appropriate parking requirements. And that would apply here as well as opposed to what the Delta probably parts and time would go as a start of a phase. No. But they also just wanted to confirm something. Look at the coordinates. It looks to me like the reduced parking applies only to the new space. It's not as if the existing space will get as reduced parking requirement opening up what might be called that access parking, right? The existing space that still have to have one parking space for two parking spaces and the less standard we don't need to apply to additional medical spaces to be added. That's correct. That's going to be correct because this ordinance would only apply to confersions, not to existing. And the one thing I will note, I think, that's done in the presentation, even though one for 200 is our standard today, the vast majority of our existing medical buildings predate that parking requirement and absolutely only are providing the one to free-fifth rate. Oh, that's interesting. Oh, that's interesting. And so is that actually mitigating the areas of going towards the list of standards? If that actually affects what we've been living with effectively? I think it's some extent because we have, you know, a history of buildings that are entirely medical and they are only part of 1 to 350 and they function. And then, can the member go, then one of our public street is suggested going with a longer ordinance, eventually I understand with the process that we're getting towards that direction right now, we'd be limited to something being shorter, but as regards in order to I'm okay with that being two years, I think it will take some time period for things to take out and first to be able to see whether or not we want to modify it one way or the other. But talking about the crisis that we're going towards right now, I think at the beginning you said that if we did this with a regular ordinance, it would take four or five months. Why so long? I mean, a regular ordinance would have apt to readings but I think it goes into effect. 45 days after the second reading, something like that. We did the first reading tonight, the second reading, and a couple of weeks from the like that. You know, if we did the first reading tonight, the second reading in a couple of weeks, then 45 months, you know, why is that just a couple of months instead of four to five? The main reason is that we have to go to the planning commission first for the MIG recommendation and we have a 20 day notice, which with the lead time to the newspapers is closer to like a 30 day notice. So it's 30 days to notice for planning permission and then you go to the council and other 30 days to notice for council and then it's first reading, second reading, 30 days to be effective. Okay, because this type of ordinance would be required to run through the planning commission first for that thing. But that's not because it would be a change to the zoning code. Okay. be a chance to be on the zone of code. Okay. You know, even then, I'll pose this consideration for the others. Why we're doing this is emergency ordinance. So I'm making a distinction here between a need for something so that we say, might be good and why it's urgent to me. Something that's striking about our time, of course, is the pandemic. But I don't really see this as being in reactions to the pandemic. Actually, I think the greater the benefits of this will be greater post-tandemic when we're concerned about the economic impact, perhaps the climbing off the space. I think the reasons why we want to do this are more connected with a post-pandemic world, than an pandemic world. And so we think that as well, maybe the other city council people can address their thoughts as to why we feel that we'll do this as an urgency ordinance. You know, as a general process thing, we should restrict urgency ordinance and stuff, so they're really urgent that we all open to hearing the reasons that as a now I'm not sure where the urgency is. So I'm just gonna jump in and know as a, and I'll let the mayor jump in as well. We did have a liaison meeting on the site, and it was brought to us actually and asked to be on the agenda from a few landlords who were referring to the pandemic and as the reason why they... To be honest with you, the whole concept of talking about re-looking at medical has been discussed on quite a few of the ways, well beyond the pandemic. So I agree with that, but it wasn't put on the agenda at that time. But more recently, when I was on the lay of them with the mayor, and actually a few of the colors are amongst some of the landlords that had reached out to us, saying because of the pandemic, because of the changing world that we're living in and that truly people weren't anymore looking to please office space the way they were used to and that the only office space that people were interested in missing was medical. So there was the pandemic pushed currently now as to why this was urgent now. And I'll let the mayor join in. That is why we were asked to put this on sooner than later. Mayor, the last one. Okay, well, as the previous mayor has been slagged and has come in and say, bye-bye, I think it's both. As we see, the continuous erosion of our retail and it continues to erode, and it's important that we be aggressive in trying to fill those spaces. But I agree with you. It's a long-term problem and we need to deal with it in the longer term and I think we can find goodness to that end as we move forward, but I don't think we should wait six months before we're able to provide some potential to fill those spaces. So that's less than me why I would do it both ways. And if I may say I would also agree to some sort of a quarter term solution that doesn't have long term implications. In my concern with the way it's framed is, indeed, we'll have both endemic implications that we're maybe not considering that that's causing me to have a little bit of a spieless about it. But I do think that we can, in some way, have something now. Again, that's why I would be willing to do it if we can, in some way, have something now. Again, that's why I would be willing to do it if we could camp it in monitor and all of that. Because, you know, I do hope that going down the line that there is going to be a desire certainly for the kind of sweet spot of office space, talent age is still related and a human industry that has considered it so much to the feel of the community as we are and that is my hope. And, anyway, so we continue to, I'm always, of course, I've been, I'll give it back to both. Yeah, it's fine, I also have one more thing made Mary, and then I'll let you continue. And that also is why we talked about just a one year as opposed to having an open ended that it was really going to reflect the necessity of doing something now. And during that time, we would have the ability to have the analysis and look at the impacts and study how we want to tweak it. But that's why it's specific to one year. But Mayor, please continue. Let me start from that point. And that is a big cap of the numbers itself because it's this gives out of hand. We have the one year to stop it. I don't think that's going to happen. I think we already heard from one of the brokers at, you know, they don't think that one here isn't even enough. So I think, I'm not really concerned with the tab at this point. I think that's something that we can wait and see what happens at the one here at Mark. In terms of why it's emergency or this, this matter was delayed as it was, it should have been a calendar or an agenda rather earlier than this, just because of our items, it had been pushed along. But we did hear an urgency from the landlords in the, it may be hard to believe, but landlords are not even just looking for a correct address on the agenda. They have obligations that they have also, and this will really spread out that space for them to look for other lands. There are candidates who are not going to even renew it, and have a big red. The building that I am in is probably going to be perceptible. It needs to be 90% plus. My floor itself, I mean, is there still the last one is moving out and it was a financial services type company. So I think that if we don't get a head of this and there are other places that people can go to that we're going to leave out. That's the reason I think it is to be dealt with at this point in time. And for the reasons that California member bosses are. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. That was helpful. And so, cutting into the chase overall, I think it's really first the move in this direction. I think it does state the the move in this direction. I think it does fit the brand, the Beverly Yolves. I think it will provide for some economic resiliency. I think we can manage to visit street privacy, and we can revisit if we perceive that it's becoming concentrated or is happening on any consequences, and though, you know, I'm ready to move on this this evening. Thank you. I just have a couple questions and I'll go over a couple of things I'm not sure we're going to get to item number three because we're at the fourth and fifth mark right now. So make a summary quick. of the summer quick, right here, a percentage right down of how many of the medical uses are at 1 for 350 versus 1 for 200. I don't, unfortunately, but I would, and guessing, I guess he's never good, but I would say it's probably much more than 50% of our medical buildings are at the Wanda 350. Basically any building that was built pre-1989 I think would be at the Wanda 350 rate and the majority of our buildings predate that time one. Okay. Um, it has a complex, but I'm certainly anecdotally, and I have a lot of people who I know who are physicians who either use the rest space or you rest space in Beverly Hills. And again, I feel that, oh, I have is about the scarcity of medical space in Beverly Hills. In fact, there was one major pediatric practice that outgrew his small space in Beverly Hills, couldn't find any space in one that going to the central city instead. And the act of practice is good for the death within traffic in our city. Parents take their kids for dinner. For one, for the other, it's an outing. And I think we're missing out, find out, having more medical space. I don't think that those anything we can do about the fact that landlords negotiate triple-net leases that we something to look at in the secure, that something that we could get involved in and not try to want to, but I don't think that's something that we really have the ability to do. I don't want to go over the things that were done before the robbery talked about the fact that if somebody handspames onto the existing spaces, still get the higher limit, the cancel rate is the 1 to 200 for the little space of canceling. And in these cases, the only one that would be the 1 to the 3.50 unless the little space already is at 1 to the 3.50, right? All right. We already talked about the two years. I don't think it's about a year at all. This is a one year maximum or this is that we can look at it again in one year and then it's 14 year, perhaps, mentioned regarding the cap, I think I don't think we're going anywhere near the cap, and I think that the photographic item, one year itself, I also came with this ordinance key. The way it is presented, and I hope you are ready to consider it, it means that's a must. But if you say you're not, you don't think we're gonna get anywhere near a cap, but they're not recommending having getting cap whatsoever. So I'm wondering what you're meant by that. I don't think that we are going to see you have to suggest something, a number of square feet, and I don't think we're gonna going anywhere near that number of swear seats. So what's the harm in putting it in there to protect us at the top of the level that raises it to 25, if we don't get anywhere near there, what's the harm in just putting it in that kind of protection? Because otherwise, in theory, if the flood meets to open and hold a sudden, you've got everyone and a mother and father moving into jail and there's really nothing we can do about it. So, in recent rise, we've seen in his presentation that there would be the rush to do something that's going to create an artificial demand that's supposed to be a being or real demand. What doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean I think it means that it is not legal. It is not legal for us to do the policy question, but okay. Okay, so with George Iser, an emergency lawyer, I am going to see the number of things that we can take over. Now, we can try that for the next few. Okay, so then with the insurance of the closed session for those items on the closed session, get into and we can do that at B closed section of 4th 3.