We're on the set of session of Prober 13, 2020 is 2.30. Welcome everyone and if we can start with public comments on items not our agenda. Yes, we do have one written comment. That's not on the agenda at the moment. Our reader for this afternoon is Susan Minovie. Susan, if you could please go ahead. Okay, the one comment is from Homayun Nehore. Good morning, I'm Homayun Nehore, and I reside at 3 KM to the Stale Place where my family and I have lived for over 23 years. I'm writing to respectfully ask that the state review it's processing, regarding the accessibility of stop work orders. The owner and his plot tractor at 320 Truesdale Place unlawfully removed the existing landscaping walls in the front yard. I would be happy to provide pictures and have attempted to expand the pad. The contemplated expanded pad and the relocation of the walls will significantly impact the value of my property. My attorney, Mark Agerman Esquire, and I have contacted the owner and he has ignored all of our requests for discussion. I contacted Cindy Gordon on Tuesday October 6, 2020 and explained the above situation. I emphasized that my attorney contacted Randy Miller and that a stop work order was issued in June 2020. In months following the issuance of the stop work order I had asked Randy Miller for updates, none has been received. My email to Cindy Gordon, I asked that the city deny any permit that impacts the pad at 3.22 sale place and enforce restoration of the pad. Later that day, Cindy Gordon kindly responded to my email and indicated among others that she is not aware of the stop work order that was issued for the property. However, we'll forward this email to the building inspector assigned to the site in Spectrum Michael Crofts. Any uncommited work that resulted in an expansion of the level pad would have to be reversed and restored to its preexisting condition. I was surprised that she could not find the stop work order. I replied that Mr. Eggerman has the email from Randy Miller that indicated that a stop work order was issued. Six hours later she replied that a inspector croft confirmed that there was a stop work order. I'm not sure why Cindy Gordon could not readily access the stop work order. I urge the city council to review the processes of availability and accessibility to stop work orders by all city staff. This is the end of the comment. Okay, thank you and direct and we follow up on that and make sure that what it would process these should have been in place or in fact in place. Will you? Okay. Any other public comments on non agenda items? I look quite a lot from my friends. Mayor of the country is down. Yes. Okay, let's go forward then and start with item A1 in clearly recognition police are So, this item, Mayor and Council members, is a recognition for our referring servants to someone. And I believe there are some comments that we're gonna be read by the mayor and council members to highlight some of Sean's career, long career with the city. It'll be my pleasure to start off on. I'll say you there. There, for this afternoon, we are recognizing a member of our city center who are getting nearly 30 years to protecting our community. So I'm John Smollin, first began his relationship with the city of Beverly Hills in the age of two when his father became a firefighter on March 4, 1970. Following his father's footsteps to lead a life of public service, Tarzins Mollin began his own journey at the Beverly Hills Police Department as a communications dispatcher on see him in 1991. So I just slowly quickly, so clearly as a police officer, for two months before he was sworn in as a police officer, I'm July 26, 1995. As a police officer, I just slowly worked on assignments with the Prime Minister's press meeting, served as a school resource officer, served training officer and the training before being promoted as police sergeant on January 5, 2013. All the secret to learning grow professionally started small and served as a member of peer support, the crisis of vocation team, and its floor and vice-eradcontinant, closely experienced as an instructor and as a advisor. Throughout this career, started small and demonstrated all sides of the poor values of the Beverly Hills Police Department. Courage, commitment, honor, integrity, and respect. Again, on behalf of myself and the Beverly Hills City Council, we would like to recognize Sarge and Smollin as he has typically retired from New Year's later this month. And thank you, Archist Moan, for taking the life or establishing the safest community to accept the whole policing. Heavenly love will always remember all you have achieved for many years to come. And I would recognize my will come to committee if you have some comments and then assistant chief group would. Thank you, thank you Mr. Mayor. And good afternoon Mr. Mayor and members of the city council. And I would like to just add a few comments about Sean. Sean has had a spectacular career here at the Verbal Hills Police Department. It's going to be the first time in decades that there's not a small and working in public safety with a fire department or the police department here at Verbal Hills. And I would like to talk briefly about what is accomplished since 2017 when he became the community relations sergeant. He created the police department's phone app so that the community can get up to date information on crime and they can complete reports online and get other information about the police department. He has really taken a national night out to a whole new level here at the police department in the city and this whole community looks forward to that annual event. He's done a lot with coffee with the cops where he had an event state place at coffee shops with the community and that was very well attended by everyone in town. And then our Neighborhood Watch program, you've done a phenomenal job with our Neighborhood Watch program, and I can attest to that because wherever I go in, Beverly Hills, I'm constantly affected by people in our community that they want to talk about Sean and this great job and community relations. So Sean, congratulations on a great career and congratulations on a We will all of us wish you a long, healthy and happy well-deserved congratulations. Thank you, sir. And Assistant Chief's food. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you all the council members. So I wanted to echo my congratulations to you. You really exemplify what a police officer looks like in the city of Beverly Hills. And the things I will remember most about you are the doors you opened up for us in the community to physically commit to our residents homes and really present to them crime prevention and crime data and really to get that true connectivity that we strive for. So really good job on that. And then, you know, anytime the community sees a member of our department on a bicycle, there's a high likelihood that you trained them. And kept them safe and were able to deploy off of a bicycle like they would be coming out of a patrol car. So really that has your name written all over it and I'm hopeful you can come back and continue some of that training. And it's just been an honor and a privilege to serve with you and I wish you and your family the very best and retirement. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. And before we get to Council, we've given this to the Muslims, we've been through the, there was an influential public comment from very marvelous. I don't know if we can take that an hour from doing after the Council comments. Let's have Vera talk. Really that has your name written on this. It just makes it a minute. Come back and continue. I'm connected. It's just that you are sharing. It's new. I'm connected. I'm going to please. I just wanted to wish on the rest of the best and to let everyone know what a remarkable person he was throughout all the upheaval during Chief Sacknelly's case. He was the solid, solid person and we are so fortunate to have had him and it will be a huge loss for the community and for the police department. So thank you for just the ability to say this and thank you, Sean, for all the many, many years. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I've been good, I've been good, I've been good comments, I've been studying the staff and memorable. We're telling you know, it's been a pleasure, apart from being a great police officer, you're just a nice guy. You know, I think about that day at the blood drive with my dad, where you just came over and made him feel comfortable. And you're just a, you're a slow guy and I appreciate all that you've done. I wish you the best certainly if there's anything high or the city can do if you don't hesitate to reach out. You can be so immersed. Good luck, Kate. Thank you very much, Chris. And last member, Boston. Thank you. First of all, son, from my heart, I want to thank you. You are among the best of the best, and truly so, police and community together. You were the foundation of them. I can't tell you how many times different residents and parents and students would talk to me about you and how you were just always there for them. And even the smallest thing you would make people feel comfortable and safe and just really help make our town feel like a small town. And really we're just really truly lucky to have had you. And I just want you to know that you've left the mark. I like very many people have, and I just am grateful for you. And you deserve the best. You gave more than 24 hours of yourself to this job. So your family, I thank them for letting us borrow you. But I want you to know that you made a huge difference to all our lives and especially mine. So thank you. Thank you very much. Council member Marius. I can work to come on all the best for your retirement. And to say to everyone's what my colleagues have said that one person can and does make a difference. And as much as it's said, to see you move on, I think as we've heard, your influence will remain within the departments, the many years, come from people who you've worked with and who you trained. And that's really important because, although one person can make a difference, it's not about any of us individually. It's about the community as a whole, it's about the instance as a whole, it's about the instance of all. And you know how sad is, and as sad as it is to see you move on, you're still a young guy. And hopefully you're going to be around for a long time and you'll stay in touch and continue to be a part of this community. So thank you and all the best for your well-reversed environment. Much of a pretty good answer, you know. Very similar to that. I thank you. I'd like to add my personal thanks to the Sergeant Small and the Sean. Sean's been out in my neighborhood. He's been out in the mighty Alice in Connection and Community involvement. And connection with neighborhood bots. And connection with security audits. And Sean, you've been the positive presence of positive voices are community-sins aged here. So you certainly will be missed. But of course, best wishes to you in your term. Thank you very much. And I have a paper of having a son over at my home earlier this week and found a little nomad I think that that's just really exceptional and it really shows the commitment that the small and family has of the service. So I also thank you and finally we can give us a couple of words. Well I appreciate the opportunity like the kind words and accolades are wonderful. It really is a bittersweet people ask me about retiring and leaving the city and it story, it's probably the best word to use. It's like my second home, so it's a model that one is. Well, congratulations on a fine career with Bradley Hills, police department. You're always welcome back and I'm going forward to seeing you in the very, very near future. So thank you. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so if you all will go on to our next item item number two update on the fiscal year 2019 2020 funding are audited to roll some financial results COVID-19 and protest security related public safety expenditures and discussion of requested official funding for fiscal year 2020-2021. And just before we give that, I just want to mention that we have a fourth-dirty stop because we have a very heavy stop because we get us up a very heavy close session calendar and we have three items to go through before then. So, if we can deal with this, the key to this is possible to be a proceed. So, with that, we'll do a gentlemen. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and city council members, and I understand the desire to move this a little bit. So we did provide a fairly detailed staff report. So I'll give a high level overview. And then there's also a portion that we presented by the police department as it relates to some of the public safety needs. And then we'll be available for questions. So first, all wise, we can go to the next slide. I'll talk a little bit about our fiscal year 1920 results. These are unaudited, called-audited at this point, because we don't finalize our audit, but we are substantially not, and we do not expect much variation from the figures we're going to present today. And it's a very high level when we initially came and entered the forecast stock in April, May, and time thing. We accepted about half a million dollars surplus as a result of operations for this 2019 point and again at a very high level we came extremely close to that which was actual, think about $843,000 a month. Now there was some variation within that forecast in terms of certain revenues, some came in a little lower. We had sales tax and TOD come a little less than the anticipated, although we do have some COT related to last year. We will recover later in the fiscal year. But then we have some, do you think it's come a little better than we anticipated as it related to some of our some investment earnings? And also a significant, re-immersed at payment that came through from the school district, We re-immersed the payment that came through from the school district first year in the fiscal year that we had not factor into the forecast. So we moved to the next slide. On the extended side, salaries and benefits were, we came in a little better and forecasted by about 1.3 million. And even within that, that probably would have come in a little better than that. Had we not, as an unanticipated cost related to protests and over time costs towards the variant of this year, contractual services, actually ended up more than we anticipated and a big course of that was just frankly we omitted the associated of making the final payment on the JPA, the sake in which from that from that work has. But all of all the ending actuals very close to what we have forecasted for the year. Next slide. And then very quickly as it relates to COVID, expenditures, in March, the City Council approved an appropriation at 1.65 million. We've got a group of people who have been working on this project. We've got a group of people who have been working on this project. We've got a group of people who have been working on this project. And so we effectively are capping in with about 1.125 or will that capped into about 1.185 million of that appropriated last year. And then we might as well be departmental liaison for the yard estimates for this fiscal year that relates to COVID expenditures. And we have a close to the estimate from July to the end of December, and all in all that number came in to two million just to deliver to them. So that is the appropriation amount of farm report today that we would be requesting for additional COVID expenditures that were not anticipated as part of the budget. Next slide. And then we relates to the progenc, as I mentioned, that there were some actuals last year. Though the 1.7 includes both regular staff signing up over time. So, you know, the regular staff times really part of what we'd already budgeted. But there was nearly, I believe, the number was close to $1 million over time, but related to last year. And then moving forward to this year, again, we asked the partners to make some estimates up to what will need to get to this period of time, particularly as it relates to some concerns about security and the upcoming election, and what that may all means, the city. And we've got estimates of about $1.3 million in departments that are non-complexated. The anonymous release related and we're asking for appropriate reason because again again these are as fast as above and beyond what's anticipated going into the bucket process. So there's a request of 1.339 going in there. And then moving to the next slide. I'm going to actually at this point I'll be telling it over to you, Steve Rivera, if there he is. And he'll be giving you a little more information about public safety portion. Okay, thank you, Beth. I'd like to briefly recap what the R.C. and the police department have faced over the last 10 months, and that started with COVID-19 in March. And then we have the protests and civil unrest, being in Lake May and continuing all through the summer up until today. It appears we're going to the future. Also we've had increased crying challenges, such as the EED fraud and the other issues that we have with increasing homeless and mentally ill population and just a broken justice, a criminal justice system that we talked about quite a bit. So we've developed some supplemental plans to deal with the issues and challenges facing us in the future. It will be full of employment during the election week. There is a supplemental law enforcement, which is another way of setting on mutual aid. We're proposing to contract with private armed security and and we're also proposing to overhire police officers. Next slide, please. For our election week, we're going to have full deployment. It's going to be a heck fuller for the entire department that needs 12 hours to call our zone, 12 hours off. No need to off starting on Halloween and continuing for as long as we need to continue it's going to be situational after election day and it will be for foreign and non-sport position specifically over the past year. And increased over time cost due to increased hours is a three-week level and you could do million and $6,000 for four weeks. It goes up to $2,780,000. And I would now be on the court over there with the assistant chief, who would continue the presentation. Thank you Chief Reveady. So, getting into the supplemental law enforcement, we're proposing to go into a contract with the Santa Paula police department, which is gonna be two targets and 10 officers for 12 hours a day. It is also an includes the lodging and the parking for the officers. The weekly cost is approximately $139,000 and the five-week cost would be approximately $696,000. Next slide. We're also proposing to go into concert with two armed private security companies that have been thoroughly bedded. The first company is NASDAQ International and the second one is covered six. The election week coverage would be 80 officers, 24-7, beginning on October 31st or all the way. We also have another portion of it, would be a two-month deployment, which would be November and December along the business district and we could deploy them actually throughout the community as well. Towers a day, seven days a week with one supervisor and ten armed security officers. For NASDAQ, the total election week and business triangle coverage for two months is approximately 132,000. For coverage six, the total election week plus business triangle coverage is approximately $541,000. For both contracts combined, it's a total of approximately $1,374,000. Next slide. We wanted to provide a chart that showed the total cost for supplemental public safety services really from election week on. The overtime for full tax and alert of our police department will be $2,782,000. The Santa Paula Police Services $696,000. The nested private arm security 833,000, covered six will be 541,000. The total cost for the supplemental services will be 4,853,000 from our budget covered from the fiscal year 2021, 2,780,2,000 approximately, for remaining toll for appropriation requests of 2,780,714 dollars. And, give her an idea, I will set it back to you. Okay, thank you, Mark. We also have a request for over-higher by police officers. Currently we have 145 authorized both time positions and we're asking for over-higher by by. As you know, the challenges facing the city and the department over the last year have greatly increased. And as we look forward, we don't see any end to that. And that's why we're asking for a bi-meditional over-hire position. Because it will help us make a public safety and the quality of service that the city is used to getting from the police department amidst a short-term and long-term challenges, such as retirements. We have currently, we have point-off officers who are retirement age and could retire at any moment, and also through normal attrition. The potentially uses for the over-higher officers would be a developing business district team that would focus on the business triangle and to because that part of the city really has different challenges than the rest of the city. And this would put them in place and getting prepared for the metro train station that we'll be opening in the near future. Also add to detectives the more cameras and the more evidence that we obtain in our arrests requires more follow-up and more work at the detective level. Also, as I'm sure the Interstate Council we're aware, where we get a lot of requests for traffic enforcement on certain streets and this essential would be used in traffic border officers. And again, the metro stations are online in several years and that'll write and for police services. With that, I'll turn it back over to Jeff. His next slide, please. So just kind of a reminder, where the kind of your budget is, you never call, where you're missing, you brought the proposed budget is, you may recall, where you're missing the proposed budget for where there was an approximate. After all, the introduction measures we talked about were back in the strain. There was about $850,000 estimated deficit. And then there was some enhancements, particularly the most note where they was, the fact that our interest costs, citywide, went up quite a bit. And he asked this particularly the most noteworthy was the factor or interest cost. And he said why I went up quite a bit. And that was as distressed at the time, that was the industry, why the issue is just something we didn't know until we were coming forward for a buzz adoption. The result of all that was that we had to appropriate for this whole house the general time. And the current, the low current, does it, is about 3.75, knowing and between rather the news and expenditures. As discussed in the staff report, we do plan as your way, you just very recently approved the necessary sets for the retirement incentives programs. Those did come up with numbers better than anticipated when we were doing projections. So we do think that we have an ability to say it's more money-guarant and as discussed then we do plan to come back to the council sometimes shortly after the new year to have a more thorough discussion about who actually has participated in that program. And at that point, really reevaluate based on support experience with revenues this year, what the recovery is looking like, how we will, a recommended base in action plan to fully address that remaining deficit amount, which may change somewhat by the time we get back to you. So those kinds of plans, we will be back before you in a few months to talk more about this year at 21. Next slide, please. And as it relates to the appropriation request for today, which I'll summarize on the next slide, we do. We are still in a fortunate position where we have general fund reserves above and beyond our policy requirements. So today's staff, the City Council does approve the recommendations today for its own appropriations. We would still be able to maintain our 40% reserve requirement. We would still be maintaining our budget stabilization reserve amount. Next slide, please. Okay, so this is to summarize the total appropriation request today for $5.49 million. The additional COVID amount was about $2 million and then between the public safety and other departments requests related to the process and of subsequent election security activities has about another 3.4 million. So the total there is about $5.4 million. We're proposing this. The so-called fiscal year's warning would talk about around $843,000, that would somewhat offset that amount. And then the remainder would be from general funds reserves above and beyond our policy amounts. And would you consider these to be one-sided needs, and therefore, the use of reserves for one-time purposes is generally within our policy as well. So with that, I believe the next slide is to show the system that the study session, where the police depart these asking to hire five initial groups. to higher-fighted issue of the group. I believe that concludes our work and we are available to questions. And they come over, over time. I think we have somebody on the line that is coming to the leading group. Oh. Yes, I believe you're done here. So would you please leave yourself? Yes. Don't. I think we've responded. If you still think I did, I thought I did. Don, if that's you, you need to be yourself. Okay. Looks like the result there. Okay. We look like there is a lot of that. Okay. Thank you very much, Stephen. Let's go to public comment if we have an A to the month. No, we do not have any public comment on this item. Okay. So then we will go to telephone member comments with the recollectimate, each of us had the opportunity to go to the screening of the public safety portion. I individually with our police department, but if there are any other questions that we have or comments will start with Council Member Gold. You know, thank you, Mayor. And I will be brief. We have been thoroughly briefed on this and several occasions. I think it's unfortunate that we find ourselves needing to do this, but we are fortunate in the fact that we can afford to do this and the primary goal is keeping our community safe. I think we have no choice but to do this so I'm fully supportive of this. Okay, thank you and Council Member Boss. Thank you. I actually do have a couple quick questions. I'll start with Jeff regarding 1.3 for protest summary assessment in our snap. It broke in the under contract equipment, labor materials and supplies, if you could just quickly kind of break down what that heat? I might ask, if you might be able to provide a little more. This is kind of a conglomeration by category of what we see. We received from the various operating departments as it related to those. There's some additional data for instance that relates to the operation that you have just stated on the operation of the EOC for a same period of time. There's a rail, a rental, a horrible residence, and that downstairs seems like that, that are part of unanticipated costs. The public works department and and we'll probably encounter there's going to be overtime as a result of this not just for safety personnel but also for non- safety personnel. There is costs for food for the database of the U.C. for the staff that will be there or the visual is working in the field those days. And there's two generals in the agency that were in my office. I don't know if there's anything I'm missing that is no worthy of that. That's a big, there's a backup slide for both the protests, the detail and the COVID details make up the 1.3 million dollar request that we're going to add. You have it? Keep going, keep going. Go. And pass the question. You know, right pass the question. If you're supposed to be a backup flight, keep going forward. 50. More. So that's, I don't know, the summary of what, that was the summary I was just getting. Nearly impossible to read, but since we went through it, that specific way, when I met myself, did we not, I didn't meet with Jeff, so I just needed that. Jeff, I appreciate it. I do have a question for the chief. The chief is still on. Thank you. Just for my understanding, as you mentioned, we have 145 offices, but in the staff report, it also says that we have 10 vacant fees, and then we talk about an over-higher of five. So the amount didn't line up for me. If you could just explain that. Yeah, we have 10 big days and then we're up for a lot of different over-ire positions. And I think there's five days. That's what I got confused because to me, and maybe it's a term of art, but when I think it's over-hire, that term means that some more than the vacancy, is that right? And then it's got maybe a term of art. Because when I think of over-hier, that term says, can you like, you're hiring more than what we have, you know, what you want in terms of the police force? So that's like I can use that term in ourology. When you say we have 145, but we offend vacancies, but then we're going to do an over-pire of 5. I think we're at the max. Yes, I can do that. Yeah, I can do that. So the 145 refers to the number of authorized positions. If we were at full capacity, we would have 145 swan off of their I've worked with the number of authorized positions. If we were at full capacity, we would have 145 so we're off of their positions that City Council has authorized. There are, I think, and they can see that the police department is in the process of preparing for those and they're asking for an additional authority to over-hired by more as part of that recruitment and Quinten hiring process, which would effectively, is to be able to hire the full complement with the overhires with the sake of C150. Again, the math doesn't make sense to me. If you have 145 officers, is that what we have currently? We are now 135. Okay, so that's where I got the freezing because in the sand report, even when you discussed the chief, I thought you said we had 145 and the sand portion says we have 140 times. Well actually we have 135 currently and we have 10 spots to fill correct which we're doing. I take you to 145 and so the over high energy extra five. Next question for YouTube is how will will take us to higher than five? Well, actually, it depends on what kind of officer we hire. If we hire a lateral, they can, there are already through the Academy and there, and they can be in the field in eight. And if there are new hire, it takes about 18 months from the time we apply to the time that they're actually out in the field and able to operate by themselves. So right now we are receiving a lot of applications for both laterals and new hires. And this is part of the idea of what we're trying to do here is seize the opportunity of hiring some really very, very qualified people that are listening to come to Beverly Hills for a career. So, yeah, it's a wasteful of this. It's not going to be overnight. I can't take a while to hire these five. That's actually the hope of the 15, the 15, and you see them. So we're just planning for the future and trying to staff up for the perceived challenges that this department's going to have over the near feature in the long term. So that's what I want to understand, because she cooperated in terms of the private security that we're going to be hiring 80. Was that the correct number? 80, private security officer? No, I believe it's 60. I can't wait to keep your on mute, sorry. Sorry about that. Thank you, Council Member Bossy. That will, that is the amount that we could pull from. So for election we, yeah, so we could pull, that doesn't mean we will pull that amount of our security arms. That's just the amount that is available. 6-0 or 8-0? 8-0. What do you think means to nobody? I think we're very interested in 60. So is it 80 or 60? Well the contract, the contract that have the potential of being 80, right now we're given the threat level that we see and the intel that we see we're looking at 60 for right now. Okay, so for the next number of weeks we can expect 135 of our officers, 60 of the security, the armed security, and from Santa Paula police, 10 officers and two sergeants, is there anything else missing or is that... Well, then we had mutual aid, which is Salomonaco Colvers City, West Hollywood and UCLA. And we could pull meatloaf from that. There's a 40-person mobile field force that we have access to. Then we have meatloaf with a sheriff's department. And then we're also working out the arrangements with the LA County Discateries Office for their Bureau of Investigation and Command and Assistance. And also with the State Department of Justice, the B&E, or Bureau of Autic Enforcement, the Agents, and then we're also talking to some of our federal partners to do the same thing, such as the US Marshall's fugitive task force. And so we're really reaching out looking at all levels of mutual aid to assist them. Well. Thank you, Cheap and thank you. Thank you. Cheap and the Assistant Chief are being so proactive. One last question. Is Gave It So More Available? The same. Good afternoon. Thank you. Chief and Assistant Chief are being so proactive. One last question. Is David Somer available? The same. Good afternoon. Thank you so much. The Chief had mentioned cameras. I was wondering where we are in terms of cameras for the next week's event. So I think we'll run on target here a little bit at a target. So we anticipate how many meet-timesimes toy by the end of the calendar year. And we're currently on track to do that. So 65, we're going to pipeline now. It's a few deployed with the events of itself. Wonderful. That's great news. Thank you for being here. On top of that, to David and I'm assuming that you're working with the chief in terms of priority locations to get to the first Based on that experience that we have the last number of months. Yeah But most right is actually hard to keep up with the David priorities The teeth and see if there's and his team on helping to afford a stand still with the highest priority Thank you David and again and his team helping to afford the stands filled with the highest priority services. Awesome. Thank you, David. And again, thank you, Chief. And so the department and the staff are being ahead of this. And hopefully it will be a peaceful number of months ahead. But we're ready. So I appreciate all the hard work that you've done. Thank you. And I just support that you've done. Thank you. And I just support this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. And I'm just really very grateful. Thank you, Linda, for the support of our artist to have a brief question, which is, this is because of the unique, this is the truth, unique situation that we have now. And as long as it may last. But it seems so to speak at some point, become less pressurized and, you know, they're not all of these protests and the need to, you know, have a distal people there to keep the community safe. This is nothing that we would necessarily have to keep. It's just basically a stop in a short term kind of situation that we're dealing with to ensure that we complete safety of the communities. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. I keep in mind that over the next three, four or five years with Metro coming online, that's going to require additional staffing for that. So if things come down here, we can absorb these people into the metro stations. Well, I think we're looking at what it comes to specifically NTA and out adding people because I think part of the agreement between us and NTA is there are going to be things that are those costs that we're going to have to work out specifically I would say to pay for it to you when it comes to them and who's paying and how it's paid for clearly does need to be placed. I believe part of our agreement is that they're paying those costs and we can insist that they do specifically when it comes to also the pension issues. So I appreciate right now I've said it is clearly in me through the election and perhaps through the inauguration and beyond. And, you know, I completely agree that we are going to place the safety of the insider community first. And you're thrown away, of course, respecting rights of people to protest and express their constitutional rights. Would I know that you in police department respect, so thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor and Mayor, I'd like to point out, I've talked to Sheriff's Emergency Operations Bureau today and unfortunately, feel that the protests and civil unrest could last well into the spring unfortunately and so we're making plans for that as well and we are planning the kind of cheap cookwood and I came up in our staff Is to protect the inter-city and we have a plan in place today That I believe the very out of the job of doing that Thank you First most Thank you We have been briefed about this, and so I do support it. Thank you to Jeff and Pat Cham, and to the other people in finance of putting together the rejections that serve as well. Thank you also for you to city council, the priors, the council, the jurors, and the renells for the group that we manage in the city and the past that we're able to afford these things and thanks to Chief Revevi and Assistant Chief Cookwood for correct the delay and doing what we have to do to provide the security that we need in the city and the face of these unfortunate terms active. Thank you, and I was a couple of great comments. We've been working as a city council on this for nearly eight weeks coming up with this plan. We will probably lay ahead of the curve and are able to get these assets because of the proactive nature that our City and police department is taking to secure these resources. Not only the household, human resources, but also material resources. So, how does it offer to our police department? For that, I also believe that this is a fascinating, proper use of the reserve funds for these one-times expenses that we anticipate in the very near future. All the support of the overhigher one-footed question, I think one of the speakers is a natural statement that our police department has, which I believe, is part of the reason that we are down from the 145 authorized to the 135 actual sea. If you can just give us an estimate of the foot, the normally here the African is and how that compares to our least fourth which may not be normal in terms of the age of these 8 demographics. A normal attrition for police department is 3 to 5% per year. And like I said earlier, right now, 135 officers, we have 20 officers that are of requirement age and they could be re could retire at any time. So in the expect that to continue into the future, we have a Sons retirement. This month we have another retirement next month and there's a potential for a few more in the months to come. And that's just what we, that are on our radar screen as it is now. So, I hope the organization has a normal attrition rate of three to five percent. Okay, thank you. So I am also supportive of the overfire. And I think we have a new dignity on this and we will have a couple of members vote. As we leave this issue, I just think it's important to thank both of our, the Chief and the Assistant Chief and actually our entire police force, who have been working really, really hard over the course of these last months. Now we know that it takes a toll on them and it takes a toll on their families and they should know that this Council and this community do absolutely respect them for, appreciate them for them, and thank them for it. That's absolutely correct. Oh, Jesus. Thank you. I'm just mayor of all those city-owned people. I will pass that on to our department. They have worked very, very hard this entire summer and you're appreciating going a long way when they have those long on days and long hours. So thank you, thank you very much and I'll pass that on there. So thank you and we will continue on to item number three, Recommendations by the Health and Safety Commission for the Council to consider implementing restrictions on Halloween and Cricket Treating or proper treating and recommendations by any staff or additional Halloween restrictions and with the help of staff and staff report, with the students. Well, good evening, Marin City Council. I am City-owned, please policy and management analysts with the City-Managers Office. Within the days, management analyst Michael George, please chief for vetting and assistant, please chief cook with as well as members of our community services department. We also have the vice share and members of the Health and Safety Commission in attendance, as we'll be presenting to you the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission and the city staff on Halloween restrictions. Next slide please. So the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health did issue Halloween guidance for prohibits Halloween gatherings events, so parties with non-household members, even if they were conducted outside, as well as car rules, personal slide benefits, and public health attractions. And this year, the LA County Department of Public Health did prohibit door to door for the treaty and Tucker treaty. However, on September 10, they revised the health order and stated these activities were not recommended. And then today, the State Department of Public Health also released their guidance for Halloween, and they are also not recommending sick or treating or chunk or treating activities. Next slide. On September 29, he helped and taken a the commission receive and click on numbers in the city's medical advisory task force. On the central hazard of ticker treating and soccer treating during the COVID-19 pandemic. By the six-ceilth, four-th number of state recommends the city consider prohibiting these activities. They help and seek the commission to support the recommendation in a UN Act as well. Next slide. It is a potential risk of increasing the public exposure to COVID-19 on Halloween. So that has identified other steps the City Council may wish to consider taking. For instance, the area around the High Thunderbaka Walden Drive numerous people, each following from outside the local area, many of whom will congregate in large foods, not at their household. Therefore, staff is proposing to expand the 10 km on October 31st that Walden Drive and certain streets and alleys be closed to be able to traffic. Specifically, staff is suggesting to consider closing, Carmelia Avenue at Wolfefert. Wolfe and Drive South founded El Volo. Wolfe and Drive to Tomonock and Bolor. Carmelia westbound at North London. And the alleys between North London, Drive and Wolfe was then a Monica Bolor to El Volo. Next slide, please. I just want to say, staff is proposing state council consider her ability in the distribution of candy, Halloween, creaks, or toys to any person outside their household. This is covered in the distribution of these items from any health vehicle or a business home Halloween. And finally, restricting the frame of saving frame to set no person, other than Lycy's Barberts, can spray fading cream on other people on Halloween. Next slide. But our team is also doing a wondrous amount of events for state and from Halloween activities this year. Specifically, our community service department has Halloween video games, the seniors with reading cards even created by preschool and adventure camp students. There are being arts craftsmen, opportunities for preschool school students. We have age appropriate reading students at our Lockstory Park Community Center, our Laxianna Park Community Center, four art adventure camp students. We have roast-cickored reading or sound care staff addressing costumes and use the Barlin Coast shuttle to deliver goody-bites to all children enrolled in the past 2020 summer camps, including notifications before hand-apparent. And we have a Halloween themed event site that is under development with a variety of breakout rooms for all ages to participate in with extensive for more activities to be added. And Patty Clark-Viney, Paddy and Clark, we need some department as here are supervisors of real quick overview of that website. It has new mayor and council member. It's a council member. Paddy can your references to our assistant manager. I would also provide a very brief overview of ABC. Any ideas? I'm going to look at the afternoon here and see if you have a member studying for the Renewable Race and Surgeist Manager. I'm going to write a very brief overview of the Westside at the East Coast staff's development strategy continuing to develop that will be geared towards all eight groups and writing a variety of activities. A number of all of you could click on the very top link next to the phone where it says pre-recorded activities, up top. Is this section your phone? Let's. Okay, we need to write to the home page've had thought that this is not the right. So under the activities page, we have a variety of activities such as me, Hulking County, for children, making monster, cooking bars, advice, cooking features, and space themes, tutorials. The next section we have up top are Halloween projects and we'll have how to park pumpkins. DIY Halloween treats. It was so many of our kids. And yeah, our third Halloween, we would have fun at the attractions where we can go on a pizza virtual ride to say, do we have high-fout or some other measures. We also work on having some live Zoom activities, lower-establet, a library travel, public service, and a story of scary stories. We'll be having live Zoom from Kenuvar, then the Penn State University of France. So we have a team of youth here for every youth group to provide a virtual following. So thank you and that's easy. Thank you so much, Patty. And then just some more thing on that slide. So, thank you and that's easy. Thank you so much, Patty. And then just some more thing on that slide. I'm at Beverly Hills Committee, and I talk to the community for a supplement. There will be a pop-up drive in New York City at our Graceville National October 23rd. We're really excited about this. There's going to be a bringing you the pizza movie focus focus that evening. Next slide. So staff is requesting the City Council provide input on both the Health and Take a Commission for Communications and City staff recommendations. The City Council may support the urgency ordinance, which is on the formal steps in agenda for adoption tonight, modify the proposed urgency ordinance, not support the recommendations of the Health and Take a Commission or city staff, whereby staff would remove the urgency ordinance. Not support the recommendations to the health and state commission or city staff, but whereby staff would remove the urgency ordinance from tonight's agenda. Or you can provide any other direction of staff on the ICO's mentioned in your report. One item of note, a site monification to the Erkestbergs has been requested by Dr. Wendellick to clarify that licensed, far-versed, or exempt would a prohibition some pretty fading cream on others on Halloween? That curfew is here on the slide, so you can see it and consider it during your deliberations. Thank you so much. And I think you're muted. If the question is if we have going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Mayor, are you okay with the vice mayor moving forward with it? Why you work at your technicalities? Okay. Vice Mayor Wanderlick, would you like to take the lead, please? Sure. I think we're so interested in firm. There's no public comment on this item. That is correct. And so then let's go to Steve Hamslow for the comments and questions to that go first. Thank you, sir. So I agree with the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission. You know, in this time where we're trying to minimize contacts, contacts that make will or no sense that more contacts, even if people were going to open their door and I suspect that most people won't. And I'm far with closing, Lyndon, I think that is almost an attractive nuisance on Halloween with thousands and thousands of people. So I think that makes a lot of sense. I have no problem with altering the urgency ordinance to exempt barbers. A couple of questions I would ask. First, I would let the world know that this is true because although we say it's true and if people are going to come here, I think we need to be aggressive in getting the word out to the media and whatever other social media to to say that this is if we're going to do this, this is what we are doing. And so to discourage people from showing up in the first place. And the second part of it is traditionally we have clothed with metal out parking on the eastern end of the city in the north as a result of the colony party and was Hollywood. This year they're not going to have that. They may or may not have people who show up without the organized event. So is there a plan to close those streets, or is it working on those streets as we have in the past? So those would be my two issues. I can take the first one which is the King Case and Campaign for Halloween. That favorite course they would keep a surly and weren't sent in all that to develop the materials we would provide to the media and also our social media campaign. We would work to see also if we could have some messaging, some iconic messaging boards put up in the city as well. So as people internally in the city they can see how we're shifting, hollowing, and I don't keep the key one, I do a little bit more input on that, and then we'll address this parking. Yeah, thank you, Senator Mayor, and California, and Keith Selleck, and the Communications Office. Yeah, so once we have final approval today from the Council and whatever is recommended, we'll implement our typical communications plan and save live, which would include a variety of techniques to get the word out, which would include obviously media releases, social media, host advertisements in the paper, use it in Excel and Everbrades, messaging with the mayor, et cetera. So we're all stand by waiting for the final position of the mobile allow communications plan with our app. What about those big electric sign boards one at each end of the city that is programmed to say there is no trick or treating Beverly Hills tonight? And that as well, yes, thank you. That's also on the list after all. Okay, great. And those are some parking issues? Yes we can. Okay, great. And the last thing is a parking issue. Yes, we can. Yes, we can. I'm with the parking. So I believe the police department had brought up the parking and we were initially discussing which went to the road closures we have. Assistant Chief or police chief, do either of you have any further input on the parking permit and we're sticking the parking on that eastern end of the city. Excuse me, Mark, do you have any comment on it? I have no information on that. Yeah, sorry, I was getting like them already. So yeah, so we talked about the road closures on Walden and the surrounding areas. That area is one that we strongly consider doing no parking along the eastern end, although West Hollywood is not going to have their events on the north eastern part of the city, I think we are concerned about people still coming in and searching out as if there wasn't event. So, you know, no formal decision has been made on the north east end, but I do know on the wall then, straight in the surrounding areas that we are recommending no parking for that area. Well, I would encourage that we do as we have in prior years and we're straight parking on the northeast part of town. It does work pretty well in the past and we have no idea what it's going to be. So for me, I'd like to see you do that again. And I think we'll add that to the workments. Can make that happen or is it something that we can just post at eight to the hours before Halloween or the action? We can do that similar to what we've done in the past, which is the just a fantastic authority to restrict parking on certain streets at certain times. So, okay, thank you. So, now we don't get handed to the audience. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? No, I'm going to take a little bit more time. Thank you. Just one question regarding three closures on Walden and London, etc. and that area. What about residents residential assets? Will people be able to drive to homes getting an out of their properties? Yes, that's why if you look, it's like southbound on Walden, from Elk. I'm with that and help is number one. From my perspective, this really does help stop the spread of people in the community to maintain the social distancing or the face coverings. And I think we clearly are planning to avoid any sort of backsliding on COVID. So I completely agree and I think the commission in the board involved to come up with a good plan and I also agree that we have this information out as soon as possible, but this is how Beverly will bring a little Halloween this year. So just wanna thank everybody for the foresight and that I completely support this as well. It's a member of this. Thank you. I'm also supportive. It's sad that we don't have to take this away from our kids, but I think it's necessary. I think we kind of feel like Princess in a way. If something that, you know, is the sake of public health, we need to do what I think people understand it. I think it's important to get out of your education plans so people understand what is allowed, what's not allowed, and to what the alternatives are. I agree with Council Member Gold that we should also look at her restricting parking in the along the West Hollywood border. They're going to be people who maybe don't know or think that they can maybe do an ad hoc Halloween parade or something along those lines. I think that's the way you deal with it. When it comes to the shaving cream, I think we want to make it clear barbers skin, but there are all kinds of bivers who will decide that the barbers go around and spray people. They can only be putting it on a customer, a paying customer, they're not allowed to be paid. Sorry, you're not allowed to go anywhere to rest somewhere, warm a barber, you know? And of course, I think if a wife wants to, but since she and cream owner has been within a home, they have a court to be allowed as well. So if we're gonna make those clarifications, I would suggest that we verify that as well, other than having very much in favor of this in support of thank you. Oh, thank you. I think we'll go to a much more world. I've been just a clarinet since it's already taken up more time than ever should have taken up. My clarification about the barbers was not to include them as an exemption. They already were in there and they said as an exemption. But the language is written, but I've had the barbers being the only people who could be coded in shaving cream. As opposed to who the only people who could apply shaving cream. And I'm just not wanting to see all the barbers running around in fear of that night, because they could be the only recipient in code speech. But anyway, back on point, I support things. If somebody would determine, design a model system for spreading the pandemic, it might involve people going to house to house, getting candy, and then spreading the pandemic is that continue to go as the house. I certainly make sense for us to unfortunately eliminate the community this year. Thank you to the Health and Safety Commission for considering you coming up with their recommendation. I'm also very pleased that we've come up with some creative safe ways of being able to celebrate Halloween's events for community services for all of their, it's come up with those safe ways and I'm happy to support this. Okay, I have a question and I apologize if it was ass while I was offline, but we're rescricting parking in the wall in the area. What are we doing if anything in terms of pedestrian traffic that is not residential in that area? Are we discouraging people from walking to the witches house? I would be back to the police department to answer. Yeah, so Mayor I could answer that. We're going to work with Keith and the community basins team on that. I do know it is the voices of the ownership of that all not to have that attraction this year. So that will be part of the communications plan and the community outreach this year. There's some residents in Man area and it's a test to the owner of that home. It really is at that entire area that is in the center. So I would appreciate that. This was an instant calendar. And we still have your friends. Do you think that maybe we're having everybody? And we still have your first two weeks. And that's great. And we're having everybody. And before we go, shout out to the Barbara Law and me for contacting Mr. Accounts. So that all partners will open down. And everybody will open up. So, George, I saw in the comment when you're done, Mayor. And I have concluded. Okay, so here's where having some technical difficulties with the built-in meeting, I've experienced it myself, and what's happening, this is for everybody that's on the line here, what's happening is if it goes off and it turns back on, your mute button, un-mute for it, un-mute for itself so your speed your mic is on. So please be aware of that and watch your mic as this meeting proceeds for those staff members who are participating. Thank you. staff members who are participating. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you to everybody. So this is the next item. This evening, as amended, I assume everybody was fine with the amendments, so we will present it on the set calendar as amended. Although it's going on to, I have a number for overview of the regional housing needs assessment process, draft or review of readout allocation and consideration of a period of draft or review of readout allocation. We will have a presentation by Ryan Will. I think you did a good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good This is otherwise known as a rena to talk about our draft Alex Hason and also consideration of whether the city wants to file an appeal. And I will try to keep this as brief as possible. Next slide, please. Just to real quick, we get a little background on rena is that the state requires every city to have a housing element in their general plan. The housing element is a long-term plan and for housing in the city, and the city's goal generally is that the state certifies a housing element, and this helps us more often than not retain local control over what happens in the city. We are currently working on the 2021 through 2029 housing elements at an eight-year cycle, and this is the sixth cycle. The regional housing management assessment or REMA is one of the aspects of the housing I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the I can send you the call in or the phone or use the audio and you can call in. Everybody hear me now, sorry. Next slide. Next slide, please. I see team I think we're moving has signed up. Can somebody else please forward the slide? Yes, sorry, his system went down as well. So we do have one public comment on it. If you would like us to read the public comment and come back to the faculty board, Mayors. So the other is on it. Okay. So, we have one public comment. Susan, please go ahead. Okay. This comment is from Rose Norton and Phil Savinick. The RHNA mandate by the State of California is an egregious overreach to make every city share the pain of overpopulation. The mandate that we add 3,096 units is admirable but undoable without completely changing the Beverly Hills city plan and destroying the quality of life for the neighborhood. The city must oppose it. Beverly Hills was a planned resident of the community of about 30,000 since the 1940s. We have added 3,000 residents in 80 years. This proposal would add 6,000 in just 8 years. The land values are among the highest in the world. There is no unused land. We have reasonable height and density limits. Population will increase 17 to 28%. The state mandate of 3,096 units for every little break apartment, add an additional 3,300 to the population. Every deal does not prepare to accommodate 25% extra demand for police, fire, civic services, utilities, parking, recreation, and distanced outdoor space. Losing local control, we cannot give up our local zoning and the scale of our community to the winds of the state of California legislators. They do not live here. They do not use our streets or facilities. To meet unbelievable goals, they will change the rules to higher buildings with lesser standards and vastly more density. While socialist counties population would make it the four second most popular state in the Union with the least space to put people. If we have so these requirements, in time our garden city will be little more than another piece of the urban jungle of Los Angeles County. We can do our best, but talking we commit to something that can't be done without destroying our quality of life. Thank you. This is the end of the comment. Okay, thank you. Let's see if we are right back with us and the slides. I am here. If you all can hear me. Looks like we've got the slide. Are we going to stand to the next slide please? All right, we're back in business. So the regional housing needs assessment is the total number of housing units that each jurisdiction must plan to accommodate in the upcoming housing cycle. This, again, is total units, but then within the total units we are given different income levels. So it's broken up into categories above market, sorry, above moderate, which is basically market rate. There's moderate rate housing, low income, and very low income. We have assignments in each of those categories. Next slide, please. So the process works is that first at the state level, HCD, which is the housing and community development department, they determine what the housing need is in the region or each region within the state. The state has already adopted a larger number statewide. It's about three and a half million units. And they then did be that up into the regional areas. For us, we are part of the Southern California Association of Governments, otherwise known as CAG. And then CAG takes the region's share and distributes that out right now, about 1.3 million units have been allocated to SCAG, and then SCAG has done that, and distributed that amongst all of the cities. This is region. Next slide, please. Next slide please. We may be having issues to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the So, when we receive the rena allocation, we then have to show in our housing element that we can meet the rena number that's been assigned to us. As part of that, we have to look at housing barriers and address those through policies. We have to show that land is zoned to accommodate the units. And then we have policies and programs either in place or to be implemented that will encourage the appropriate number of units at each income level. Next slide, please. So one of the questions that comes up most often with Rina is, does the city have to build housing for Rina? The short answer is no, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Rina is really a planning target where we actually plan or zone for the housing units. It is not a construction mandate. However, it's also more than a suggestion that the units be built in the city. There are some provisions in state law that come out of, with none of the SB 35, that sets forth, I guess you can call them penalties for lack of a better word, but if production under rena falls short, depending on where a city is short, the jurisdiction can be required to approve a certain qualifying housing development project under a streamlined repeat process, and that's again a big state law, and that's one of the main penalties that comes from not meeting Rina. Next slide, please. So how do we comply with Rina? One, we must show that we have land use plans and regulations either in place or to be implemented that will allow housing development but that equates to meet our rena obligation. This can include changes to the zoning itself or to regulations to make it more permissive to build housing. And then throughout the rena cycle we have to show our progress to the state that we are actually meeting the numbers as required. That's why please. So take a look at our current assignment from SCAG. This is a draft allocation because we are in the appeal period right now. What SCAG has done is that really tells needs to plan for 3,096 units. That gets broken up by the various income categories left to write very low income units at 1,000 and 5 low income 678 moderate income 601 and above moderate income, which is essentially market rate is 812 units. Next slide, please. So this is a draft allocation. A final determination will be assigned by SCAG in February 2021, and that will be at the conclusion of the rena and appeals process. State law establishes the grounds for appeals at a very specific criteria which I will cover momentarily. In the past, it's been our experience that very few jurisdictions have been successful in their appeals because there are such limitations on what the grounds for appeal are and those can be get tighter over time. Also, the appeal process is a zero-stum game. So, SCAG has been allocated approximately 1.3 million units. That number cannot change, so even if a city is successful in their appeal, whatever number of units are reduced, those go back into the 1.3 million unit pot and are then allocated back out to other jurisdictions. So it's possible to even have numbers go up as a result of an appeal, depending on where the assignment come from out of SCAD. One thing I want to check on very briefly, I know there was a document that was distributed, report prepared by the Embarcadero Institute that looked at how the housing needs had been calculated for the state that document essentially indicates that they believed that there was a double counting done and that the 3.5 million housing unit number used by the state is incorrect and should be reduced. We've reviewed that. We've discussed it with our housing consultant. I think we generally agree that there probably would not accurate counting done by the state in terms of landing at the 3.5 million unit number. However, that has already been appealed by SCAG. SCAG appealed that to the state and the state largely dismissed. That appealed there were some slight adjustments made. But really, I think our argument with respect to the numbers is more with the state and less so with SCAG because SAG gets stuck with the 1.3 million and they have to assign that out to the cities within the region. Next slide please. So under state law there are really only three reasons that an appeal can be granted. The first is application of final methodology. Basically, we would have to show that SCAG failed to correctly calculate our housing need in accordance with their adopted methodology. We reviewed the methodology and whether we agree or disagree with the methodology, it does not appear as though SCAG has miscalculated our assignment. The next option is if there are local planning factors and information on a permanently furthering fair housing, this one really looks to whether or not SCAG appropriately considered all the relevant information related to fair housing within cities. Some examples of this have to do with preserving farmland or a lack of infrastructure such as sewer or water, where it might not actually be possible to zone for additional housing. Again, we do not see any items specific to Beverly Hills that fit within that particular set of facts. And the last reason for granting an appeal is that there has been a change in circumstance. And this needs to be a significant and unforeseen circumstance in the jurisdiction. An example that I can think of that would probably fit within a change of circumstance would maybe be the city of Paradise where they had that wildfires come through and they lost just about all of the city, both housing and population living there. That would be a significant change in the circumstance. We have not identified any significant changes in circumstance in Beverly Hill at this time. Next slide please. So in addition to being specific about what grounds can be used for appeal, they also are specific about what grounds cannot be used for appeal. So the very first one, which is really a catch-all, is anything other than the previous list I went through, does not qualify as grounds for appeal. Existing zoning and land use restrictions, including the general plan. So if we were to say our existing zoning or our existing general plan doesn't allow for additional housing, that would not be sufficient grounds. Any local ordinance, policy, or or voter approved measure limiting residential development, again, is not grounds for appeal. Prior under production of housing, so basically the argument that we have not produced a lot of housing in the past that cannot be grounds for appeal and also stable population numbers in a jurisdiction, which Beverly Hills has had a very stable population. However, that is specifically excluded as a grounds for appeal. Next slide, please. So, we're now in the appeal period. There is 45 days within which jurisdictions can appeal to SCAG. Our deadline is October 26. So in the event that there is interest from the city council, in filing an appeal, we would ask for I think two things. One would be to try as best as we can today to articulate what grounds we think exists for an appeal. And I would also ask that if we go down that path, perhaps the mayor would want to establish an ad hoc committee of two council members just to work with us on final drafting in the middle of an appeal letter because this will need to be submitted prior to the next city council meeting. As I kind of touched on a little bit in the presentation, we've looked at the options for appeal. And based on a number of factors, we are not recommending appeal at this time. A couple that I'll just touch on real quickly. Based on past outcomes of RENA cycles, the city had a very low number from RENA. Last cycle, our number was three. And so with such a low number from Rina, last cycle. Our number was three. And so with such a low number, I think looking at a much higher number this year, there is some balance there, though, between the two cycles. Other cities under the prior cycle had much higher allocations from SCAG. Also, just looking at previous actions from SCAG, as I noted, appeals from other cities have typically tended to be unsuccessful because of the strict criteria for granting appeals. We've also had conversations with our housing element consultant, John Douglas, who we actually have on the meeting today and can answer questions if necessary. He talks a lot with folks at HCD and it's very difficult to quantify, but in his experience, there is a lot of good will that is afforded to cities that are viewed as good actors and trying to comply with the rena allocation. When we get into the housing element and trying to make a case to HCD about how it is that we are planning for the additional units, it really becomes sort of a negotiation and it can be helpful to have all the goodwill possible as we're negotiating with HCD to try to get a certified housing element. I will say I've also spoken with a number of colleagues in other cities many of which are community development directors and I have not found one so far that thinks that they have a case for appeal that meets the criteria. Some of them are filing appeals because they've been directed to do so, but they don't believe that they will be successful in their appeals because the criteria are so strict from SCAG and from the state. In the event that we did file an appeal and we were successful is also likely that the number would not be reduced by any meaningful amount, if at all. Because again, we're looking at 3,000 units, which is a significant number, but even a 10 or 20% reduction would still leave us with a substantial number of units to plan for. So at this time, our recommendation is to not appeal. We're happy to answer questions, and as I mentioned, we have our housing element in full and available as well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Brian. And we have any other public comment that belongs in the Philippines. So we do not have any other public comment on this item. Okay. So then we'll see if we can complete this item in the next 23 minutes starting with Council Member Gold. So Ryan, in this allocation, it seems like the methodology is different and at least half of this allocation reflects what they consider to be our current state. And then the other half is what they think our future state is. And I guess it's that current state piece which is so high. It's in fact that it's true. Isn't the current state whatever it is? Isn't that their fault? Why is that our problem? They're the ones who made the allocation. To come back after the fact and say, well, but you know, you're really off by this big number if we made their number. This doesn't see fair. I think that's right. And if you look at the numbers, it's actually even more than half about 2,500 of the units. I think is based on what they consider to be existing need. Whereas the future need is around 526. So yes, I think that is a valid argument and yet not one that fits within the criteria for appeal. Oh, but there is no appeal in court by that. So the only appeal is to that. Is that correct? Correct. So I mean, the end of the day out, and we're going to have a lot of choice, but the fact of the matter is that we talked a lot about Bayes and Switch. And this kind of is that they just changed the baseline. So the fact that we had a big homeless problem today which we all recognized the sort of driving this you know changing of the rules. They can't really expect, I mean those mean the numbers were out there for years. I mean it wasn't just the last one you're psych, probably within the last two or three winged cycles, where the R number was relatively low. So now we're trying to catch up for decades worth of their underestimation of what the actual number ought to be and putting it on us to kind of make the difference off in this next cycle. I just think of itself, a strategy. It should be a peelable. It just doesn't make sense. If there's no place to appeal it, I'd say we're kind of screwed because there's no place to appeal it. But I mean the methodology of this is just wrong. It is just wrong. It's just wrong. It's like saying we're going to charge an interest card in our house. And oh, by the way, we're going to actually double what we think the value of your house is. So you can pay us twice as much. It don't want. Okay. So, I have not waste a lot of time venting. I really don't know if we're speaking, but none of us can hear anything. It's turning into how again. I couldn't hear when he was saying, I couldn't hear the end of what you're saying. This is no way of holding me here about something as important as this subject. It really is not. This is really important for us to have to hear every other word. Well, briefly what I said was, I think the methodology is flawed. It's making out for pass mistakes on their part all in one field. And it's really something that not only we, but the entire region is struggling with when they now change the methodology. And I said, I just think that that's wrong. That said, and it's core, it's really a problem at the state level. It's not a problem at the SCAG level. And the fact that this is in fact the zero-sum game and our only appeal is to SCAG really leads us in a place where I don't think we have a lot we can do. I don't mind writing a letter or having a lay-as-on craft something that says that we think this is the dollar, but I think that an appeal to scag is not where we want to be meaning appeal to the state. I will say that I know that the city was Hollywood as a feeling and their basis of appeal is saying they're a third our size and their allocation of fire. So I mean they're looking to throw us into the bus. Lauren is anyway. We're going to throw us into the bus and because they said that you know they're on third of our side why should they have more appropriations. So unfortunately I think if we start this we're going to get a lot of it and considering who we are and how we land up on these things in the court of public opinion I actually think we have a potential to hurt ourselves if we make a lot of noise at the regional level but I don't know the problem making noise at the state, just basically saying that this is a silly, silly way of doing business and track league. It's no better than throwing darts. Okay, I had darts in that again. That's a member buff. Yes, so I feel similarly indifferent. I agree with everything that you really said. However, I feel very strongly that we should appeal. I think that, and I actually do believe that the, when you look at the three options, the application for final methodology, I do believe that we were fit under that for the ability to appeal. When you looked at the last that we were fit under that for the ability to appeal. When you look at the last time we were designated only three and now the design asking us eight years later to do three thousand and ninety six. So when I called Ryan and Ryan, I let you and I have this conversation publicly, you know, even when you spread it out and say, okay, three is not a lot and then three thousand is too much. And you kind of down the middle and say 1500 per eight years when I asked you that question, you had said to me that is also still too high and didn't represent the right number for our city. So I'll let you address that. I mean, because I was trying to make sense of the three to the now three thousand and then break it out over 16 years and try and justify it. And when I spoke to you, you also said that even by cutting it at half we were still too high. So I'll let you address that. and even by cutting it in half we were still too high. So I'll let you address that. Sure, and maybe not necessarily, but it's too high or the right number or the wrong number, but really when you look practically about the process of developers going through a corporation of plans that arele them, stating building permits in place and constructing, building. It's a lot of, or a mall that he liked Beverly Hill. You would have to have a significant number of properties under construction during those eight years. And maybe it's possible, but it seems pretty unlikely that even with the most generous regulations we would realize all of those housing units being constructed. Right, and I think that we as a city, you know, has, we have shown in the last number of years that we value and we are proactive in trying to add more affordable housing. I think we've all set priority that we ourselves are looking for locations to build affordable housing. You know, it's not our fault. We can't make people build housing. We're trying to find incentives for those to do. those two. I, or Dave, whoever wants to answer this, what is the downside to us of killing this? Since really there is, you know, in my estimation, and I think Ryan you also suggested that even in the real world, it would be impossible to, you know, even allow for that number in our city, even if everything was abstract and people wanted to build it and move into it. What is the downside to us appealing this summer? I can touch on a couple things and I'm not sure if our housing is going to bubble into the time-end, although if our housing is sold, it's the time-end of the whole thing. But I think downside would be potentially absolutely old- already as sort of a part of the body that has sort of a public perception standpoint. I think as noted by Dr. Gold, when appeals are filed, other jurisdictions have the ability to weigh in on those appeals. So you might actually have other cities saying, I really hope you should get more than what they were already given rather than getting a lower number. I mean, why is that an interrupt? We just heard that a moment ago, from June saying that one of the local cities is appealing. They're not concerned about how they, quote unquote, look like, and are already suggesting that we should have more. So we already know going into it that that's going to occur. So over the last housing cycle, West Polly was to build about 2000 more units in excess of what their arena allocation was. That's one of the things that they are highlighting in their appeal. They also are talking about land area and the density that they are highlighting in their appeal. They also are talking about land area and the density that they already have in the city. But a lot of their conversation has to do with the fact that they exceeded their allocation by thousands of units. And Beverly Hills, we exceeded our allocation, but probably by low single digits. I'm sorry, low double digits. I'm sorry, low double digits. Unfortunately, I believe that we have been really trying to encourage development for housing. We've been trying to encourage affordable housing and so forth. On the other hand, we can't necessarily make people build housing. You know, real estate is very expensive, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't know that we can equate every city to one another. But I, again, I think, you know, the numbers that we're allocated, what, how do you get from three to three thousand, and how do you justify that? Well, it's a different methodology. What is the negative to us appealing other than what you said that people don't look at Beverly Hills in a good light. It's just sort of another city that is also appealing. So, you know, not to call them out, but I imagine there will be other cities that are appealing to the numbers, also aside from that, what else is a negative? I think the other one is really, again, an intangible, but it's a good will factor with HCB. All of these numbers are very high, not just for Beverly Hills for other cities. It's gonna be very difficult for cities to make a case to HCB that they have appropriately planned for the units and to get a certified housing element. It really is a negotiation because HCB looks at what steps you've taken and whether or not they think you have taken meaningful steps that will satisfy the rena number and as you go through that and I guess maybe I can ask our housing consultant John Douglas to speak a little bit more to this but he's been doing this for close to 40 years and cities that have been viewed by HCD as being compliant, good actors not appealing their allocations. They tend to fare better in their negotiations with HCD. And then I can introduce John Douglas here or how to be consulted. Thank you Ryan. Mayor and council members, yes. I agree with everything that Ryan has said. I think the question of what is the downside to appealing is a very subjective one. It's not something that is, you know, direct point 8 point B. And I would just echo what Ryan said that when HCD is reviewing city's housing illness, they have a tremendous degree of latitude in whether to accept the city's analysis or not. And the better the relationship, that cities act with HCD. And the more of a team player a city appears to be in the struggle to bring his housing, then I think that improves the relationship and improves the chances of getting a favorable outcome. But as I say, it is a very subjective argument. I spoke into some of the platters of Skag and the work they use is a tsunami of appeals. There are going to be many, many appeals. And of course, there are many opinions on the merits of appealing. So all I can tell you is, is I think whatever the city can do to maintain its appearance as being a team player and trying to do what it can for housing is going to help the housing element certification policies. And thank you, Mr. President, for being part of this call to it. From my perspective, I think we can make the argument, which is true in the last number of years, when we've had a property who have looked to do housing, we, as far as I know, we have supported it. We are, you know, talking about mixed use, whether we do a mixed use ordinance, or whether we do, you know, mix use case-by-case. You know, I think we have shown that we are trying, you know trying, as I said earlier, we are still looking to build our own housing in terms of affordable housing, you know, as well as our rent stable, our education ordinance, I think that our choices as a council of planning commission and other wise, the last number of years have shown that we have proven to some of the value similar value towards having more housing, except for the rain in numbers, I think that's something we have valued. But I guess my question to you is, you know, it sounds like it's a one-sided conversation because, you know, when Ryan says about being bad actors, if we just accept it, accept the number of them, then where is the conversation? Is there an ability to accept the number? And then have a conversation? I guess that's my question. If you accept the number, do you then lose the opportunity to continue discussing it? And there's a real reality from, you know, when I heard there are people that are talking about moving out of California. There are people that might not choose our city to live in anymore, you know, etc., etc. So if we were to accept the number, where is the opportunity to work with them in the future? Yeah, those are certainly good points that I don't disagree with any of them. So, I am awesome. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Okay, those numbers. Sorry, I was wondering, didn't hear a word you said for maybe the past five minutes of apologies. I'm stating all of all places. Didn't hear a word you said, so if you could repeat the whole answer, I'd appreciate it because this is important. work you said so if you could repeat the whole answer I'd appreciate it because this is important thank you. John, do you hear my question? I heard you're a question about, you know, I give you your question I didn't hear the answer. Okay. All right, so the question is if we accept the renail number, do we still maintain the opportunity to have a conversation with HCD on the question of the thousand element and getting certain patient and thousand element? The answer is yes. If it's my opinion that the final rena numbers that are adopted next February are not going to be much different than the draft that we've seen up to this point. If you go back and look at the scale of deliberations from eight years ago in the last three to cycle, there were 12 cities that appealed and none of them was successful. And I would expect this to alert outcome this time, even though there's many, many more cities that appealed there, we're in a number this time, even though there's like many, many more cities that killed their arena number this time. So, I think it was a turn to you, so I think they're expecting a semi-move to... Yes, they are going to be a lot. And so, the critical issue going forward will be working with ACD as we prepare the housing element and analyzing the capacity because as Ryan pointed out in this presentation, the rena numbers are not a mandate to approve building permits or to accomplish those numbers. And if I can just give you some context, if you look at the 1.3 and change rate of numbers for the SCAG age, it now works out to over 160,000 housing units a year. It totaled for those exchange. Back in the global age of 2004, 2005, the entire state produced maybe two ununited housing units here. So 160 in the arena per year in the state region versus 200,000 in the best of times in the last couple of decades. So it's obvious that the arena numbers are not realistic. But if I were to channel my inner governor, I would say that the purpose of the arena numbers is to remove any constraints at ender housing development. So that zoning regulations do not inhibit housing. There are going to be lots of other issues that inhibit housing production, but the state doesn't want zoning to be one of them. So again, and I'm going to let my colleagues continue because I don't want to monopolize this school really quickly, just if you can. We state what do we lose, especially since there's going to be a tsunami of other cities? What do we lose by appealing? And this is to our eyes. I think that's a very subjective judgment as to whether the city will suffer at all, or if they do suffer, how much? The loser will. or if they do suffer how much the laws that we work with, when you say suffer, I mean, how do you get peelized by appeal? I mean, you know, we're not living in a dictatorship government where we can't speak and say that we're not happy with something. So what does that mean? What it means is that the process of preparing and getting state approval for the housing element is a subjective process. And the state legislature has delegated to an administrative department in Sacramento, these to me, the authority to either approvebs, local housing illness. And I just think that it's human nature for substance and the more willing to work with each other if they feel that there's good safe on both sides. I can, well, let me leave it at that. So I think it's the appearance. If what's important is both the appearance and the substance of being a good-seen player in the fight for house. I have led my colleagues go when one son of the mayor circles back on us. I'll continue, but I really want everyone else to say what they want to say. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get a little bit of. Thank you. So I'd like to ask Mr. Douglas, well, it's a lot of you talked about this and be put safe on both sides. How can there be any good things from the HCD that uses methodologies that are beyond good evil, which are saying, plan planet or a planet from other cities say that there's no way that seems to meet these figures. Is it good saying something? You just said it should be on both sides. How was it on both sides, current? I am not sure I have a good answer to that question. I don't think anyone expects the cities or the Skag region or the state to actually assume those three numbers. They are paying targets that are put out there in order to remove any possible constraint that local zoning could have on housing production. Okay, I appreciate your answer. I have to say I have a little bit of a different perspective as well. And I will just let everyone know that I'm on these tags, the 18 committee, and it's 10.0, almost all the re-subcommittee meetings. And that newer is discussing with the re-subcommittee chair, maybe WONG, who is a council member from your, your Belinda. Couple of things I'll say, and just to give some background information, as we haven't had it yet. The 3.5 million figure that Ryan mentioned that comes from a McKinsey study with even the governor of students has walked away from. It was something paid for by the developers, people who were part of the urban growth machine. It's trying to say that we need it. I'm actually going to be posting right now a link to a Friday match that ain't from February and this February this year, this would be four-go-a-bit, kick-it. The other Friday match is a quasi-government for lender that deals with halting. According to them, the figure is 3.5 million halting shortage. It's 3.3, but that's the entire United States. If you look at California, the actual figures 820,000 units of the shortage that we have, would say, say, maybe be overstated, worse than saying, into account, you're state migration. That, in addition to the embarked heroism, it's a study that rhymes with medicine. That actually is something that only came out within the last two weeks. So this is something that went and scared of P.O. And by the way, Steve's own demographers, self-adviational figures of the reason to be in the 6.7, maybe 800,000 range, but not 1.3. Is a period of figure. And I find it very difficult to talk about the states when people are trying to oppose the unit of measures on on stage. I think we have to be realistic ourselves and look at reality and make good audience. Asset, the figure that county houses, gag houses, 1.3 million, it seems by a multitude of the things that are very much as the whole state requires. And I have to have you in the market here to use the methodologies which are the way the methodologies used by the CD were very wildly between staff and metal region. Our region, sand and other units, it's consistent methodology in finding a figure out what the real numbers would be across the state. So if you want to say that figures of bogus sand, that can legitimize the system, I wouldn't be so great with that. But if the figures are in legitimate, then that's nothing that I think we should simply accept. I think we should step way each step. Now, if I may, if I may, it sounds the same, that you're in favor of appealing it. We've already heard that, you know, by the last time I've owned, I just wanted to say that we get through everything that we have to get might or scale us through. It's just so important. This is nothing that can be done in a two to five minutes. And I give it hours and hours of my time by attending all of those re-em meetings on behalf of the city, and of course getting staff has intended themselves or what you expect to do. So I think if you're background, but if you're not knowing else can do. And I have a meeting in the act and I know, and how we want to move forward with the deal. I think you need to have all the information to be able to make it as if not with suggest. And I'm trying to give that to your infindsant to say what I think should be done on a basis of my months of attending these meetings and dealing with people and talking to people both in the same and other organizations and with other people throughout the state. So to simply give a staff yes or no. I don't think that's fair. I think it's important for us to be able to carry on all this with each other and that's what I'm in the middle of doing now. You know, they'll end up still savoring it in Rose, Northern Tons of Belmont if it's a county were estate with the said 40 second of our estate and that's not true. If that like county were estate it would be the 10th or 9th Florida State in the country. So it's getting very big. Real originally everyone needs to understand was originally was a planning tool and the reason that we got three out of last was because it's right pointed out we We got a very high vacancy rate. Or vacancy rate now is 6.88%. That's pretty much, compared to some of the other regions. And we have high vacancy rates, and we have low growth. You heard now that they completely switched the methodologies, potential growth or presented growth, is no longer a reason to appeal figures. So it was a originally planning tool which the cents become weaponized? And the fact of the matter is what we have in the staff is that if we don't meet these goals, something takes in called SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, which allows developers a streamlined by-right process to make the kind of housing that they want. This need need to be affordable. And if you look at our read of figures, so two thirds of three quarters need to be affordable, need to be the right kind of housing. So the weaponization of Rina, I think, is the problem here is, it's not that we just need to stone for the number of units that the Rita figures are. Housing accountability at As we do say, we need to get built. Councilmember Boston correctly made the point. Change don't build housing, and that's what's so crazy about all of us. We're being held accountable for something that we don't have the right to control over. Now, we could build housing if the state gives us the money to do so, but of course, the state is not doing that. So that's the main issue of the problem. I think that we thought about goodwill at H&D. If there is a tsunami of appeals, and we're very thankful about our appeals, that we feel that here are the reasons including I do think that we should talk about methodologies that we think are wrong. The Council of Governments of Orange County has submitted a letter to SCAG about, again, asking men to do something if possible, about the real figures as a whole. And the legislative, to me, is SCAG has been activated to look into the reinforce that they may have as more of this information comes out including the Embarcadero Institute study. This will do on process and appeal. Then the tsunami of other appeals have happened. Your words is here of some blame. We may end up actually getting some of that allocation from SCAD before we even have it as tough and with HCD. I think we have nothing to lose. I think the whole process is egregious. I understand that the governor doesn't want, you know, doesn't want filling the stand in the way of 1000 and yet here's the same governor who, you know, SB 5 was going to provide $2 billion a year for affordable housing. You know, I think the question is when you look at our reader figures and we see a need which we do now for more affordable housing, the notion of any of that luxury housing is somehow going to help, I think, is misplaced. I don't see that we have anything to lose by appealing to a sooner respectful fasten. I don't think that being a team player needs that we need to be house-indicent and agree to something that we all know is unrealistic and that we all know is un-examable and that is quite frankly meant to be un-achievable because the goal is not just with us but with other jurisdictions and now that's B35 and housing accountability that came in. I do think we should feel I agree, it's probably not quite a make a difference but at least we will have gone on record saying that we feel that the process is flawed and that we think that there is that there is a mistake at the same time we deal with council member bosses that do our own work which we have done and we continue to do to create actual affordable housing which we need and be able to sell that to HCD if we're able to create actual affordable housing which we need. And being able to still have that change to be if we're able to create, I'm seeing property for example, 300 units of affordable housing were not existed before. We're reading numbers before we're three that said the whole night before. I would hope that if they're truly team players they would look at the reality of the situation and see that that means something. But to simply accept the figures that are all beyond good and evil, I don't see how, or why we should do it. I understand that these cases for PLR are minimal, but I think we go through our cities, our communities, and so, and I think we go to continue to be part of the discussion that we need to talk through our legislators and look to them to try to keep weaponized reason. Because, you know, I would agree with that. By the way, I just want to chime in and say, I think you have three people who would like to file an appeal. Maybe John would like to, if it's okay with you, be part of the writing of that appeal. Obviously, he's the most knowledgeable of us about that. But I would certainly be in favor of doing it. And I also, too, is it clear? Yes, sir. And I think you, with concept cities, and other cities, we need to talk to our legislators and tell them that this weaponization of Korea is wrong. We should talk about that. The problem with those organizations, and we can talk about it offline, is that it's a zero-sum game. So unless we're all together it's a we land up a part. So that's something we have to orchestrate. The allocation states that yours are and I'm not going to go into how they changed the allocation LA and Riverside were involved. There was a bold thing you may know about that. I'm talking about murderous persons with AIDS and a team that given the region more, you know, 70% firefighters and spreading that as we need for the entire state. I'm not agree with you. I agree with you completely and I think a strategy for moving forward. Something we ought to talk about, not tonight, but something we ought to talk about. Sorry, I wanted to just give you that background and for appreciate right and don't do it with the state companies. And someone who was there, I think, we need to again, you know, they can use the stereotypes that Beverly Hills all they want. We really are interested in, and I hope that we continue with our efforts to actually create the right of housing, affordable housing. That being said, I think that we can't influence it, we accept the narrative that the urban growth machine is trying to create and talk to your about housing. Because if we do need housing and we do need affordable housing, we don't need more luxury housing. Anyway, I'll leave it there and thank you for having some patience. Thank you. Go for our whole job. My name is Matt. We need more time on this topic. I have a lot of questions where I already asked our stock and point, I'm not going to get an opportunity to ask them. And so I think we need more time on this topic. So actually we took topics in front of us tonight. Is that really what I think we need more time on this topic. Then, actually, we think about this in front of us tonight. Is that really what I think you do with the housing elements in the general plan, which we really haven't spoken about at all and the other happening, which is the green allocation? The immediate precedent deadline is whether or not to reveal. And so that's a decision that we have to decide now is to what we're doing in terms of going forward. And so let me say as regards that, I think as Fred suggests, we had the start of having a wee exam that we discussed the specifics of what we might say in the appeal, because we won't have another city council meeting before we have to finalize that. I think that's a reasonable way of going forward. And that's like it is reasonable for us to appeal. But there are other topics that don't have that immediate oppressing deadline. And I think we have to come back and devote enough time to discuss them because this is an enormously important topic for the city as a whole. There are potential problems with the total number, for the state as a whole, and then how that number gets allocated to the SCAD. There are problems with how the SCAD allocation number becomes a number for very little. That's the only thing that we have a pressing deadline for right now, in terms of whether or not we appeal. There's more to say than what I've been saying in zero time that I have to say. But on a conceptual basis, I disagree with many of the elements of the SCAD allocation methodology. I understand that there will be a final methodology that has been adopted, and perhaps whether or not we see the right framework for methodology was adopted or not made up of the basis for an appeal, but in terms of the greater issue of how do we get relief. I think there's three out of you for potential relief. One has to do with an appeal to scan, which has to be in a very limited basis. Another potential out here's a question, has to do with litigation in the courts. Now what the report says is that the final allocation cannot be challenged in the court. We're not on the final allocation yet. Can something be challenged in the court prior to the final allocation? Larry, do you know the answer to that? I believe not. And so you get to the final allocation. It's not right to challenge. And there's a court decision saying the final allocation is actually what our report says. Is that the final allegation cannot match up. I appreciate that. I think unless David's here in He Can Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd be able to challenge something prior to it being finalized. But as an accessor, when it's final, any fan challenge before it's final, that's correct. If you go, if you can go to see whether or not there are names of challenging the court and perhaps the avenue that really might be the only real possibility or getting substantive change, we'd be with the legislature. And so what are our avenues there? You have to perhaps assume that many of the pills are less contributing to that. Actually maybe helpful in terms of nobody wants the system of nobody thinks that it's realistic. And perhaps that might help inspire some changes at state level. Here's a thought about a possibility for a grand frail deal. One of them, a grand sort of deal. One of them, stated, reads in a sort of deal, is that they, that SCAD, did not adhere to its final methodology. How is Alpygium's aggressive? When SCAD says what its final methodology is, I think describing what is its framework and they describe it in words or they gain gas and meaning of how it actually is implemented. There are formulas involved in all of this. There are calculations being done. There are assumptions. In litigation, there's a framework that has a someone who may calculate something and whether or not somebody applied reasonable assumptions and a reasonable methodology in terms of implementing that framework. So is the final allocation methodology that is the framework that's the way you hear it or do you get down to how it would be implemented? I think if I'm understanding the questions readily, then John Douglas feels free to chime in if you'd like. But it's the framework of how they apply the methodology. I think if we were going to use that as a heel ground, we would be arguing that they had to maybe incorrect information about Beverly Hills. So one of the big factors in the methodology is what a city's access is to jobs, how close are jobs and jobs centers to the city. We got a big number, partially attributable to the fact that we're in close proximity to many, many jobs. If for some reason that was wrong and we were out in the middle of nowhere somewhere. That might be where we go to SCAG and say, you know, hey, you've assigned us a big number based on being in close proximity to jobs. We're not in close proximity to jobs. That's a big thing, but I think I'm saying something's different. The air final man's name and we're very out of time to do this. And so, you know, I'm kind of frustrated with that. So I would suggest going forward that we do ventilators on the liaison meet and try to come up with appropriate grants for an appeal. And I will be happy to contribute my thoughts to that liaison on either of his own member of the liaison. I'm interested in interviewing my thoughts, so I would be allowed I'm doing control, to potential energy for the field. So that's a little bit to have them involved. Just a little quick, as I stated on the onset that I completely support an appeal, so I'm happy that there are the votes for it. And I completely agree that councilmember Marish needs to be part of that ladies. Thank you. And I might as well agree on that. If you got the water, it would be participated in that. And as a member of that ladies on, I think that would be a very, very good here. And I'm thinking that I would be happy to hear. Okay, and, you know, I similarly have believed that all of those not months of an upside, I don't think this is that much of a downside of a clearly, but it's really a kind of methodology that really should be a care. I think John, you're absolutely correct when you have a big number for this, for the city California, there's a woman without a whack and then it really follows after that. I got a million proper methods of legal appeal for that. I think that's a unit we close through at floor of the interim. So there is one of these synonyms of appeals anyway. I think that's much different than we only see that in this point to a deal, and we've never been able to make, that of those people who don't think are special kind of a deal. It's not significant when there is that synonym. I think that is always something that we need to be cognizant of, you know, us beings of ACE forward, and Sacramento was not always, you know, the best way to go, but since there are that many people that are doing it, I also read this before with that. And have them up sort of a second. And we have later on, Susan. OK, with that, Nancy, I can go to you. What was the final decision we were going with the internet issue? Meanwhile, I have a question. and in the issue. We will. We will attend the meeting at Provider's day in the dinner break. So let's go ahead and log on to closed session now onto the link that you have. And then we're in the dinner break. We'll try to switch in the dinner, but I just wish you and your providers. Okay, so Larry, we're going to, uh, Jared and Phil, the evening sector, will go and vote for the third round of the list of arms and army. Okay, what is it? Okay, thank you all, we'll see you back. Everybody there, it's so much fun.