We will start with public comment. If there's anyone in chambers who would like to address us on items that are not on the agenda, now would be the time not seeing any. We will go to anyone who's available on electronic means if there is anyone. There are no public comments. Okay. So with that, we will go to item number A1, traffic and parking commission, interview panel updates and whom I'm met will be presenting on that. Thank you mayor, members of the council, whom I whom are met your city clerk. I am very happy to be here this afternoon to provide you with an update from the traffic and parking commission interview panel. The panel was composed of vice mayor Sharon Nazarian, council member John Mirish, the traffic and parking commission chair Karen Afahin, and Vice Chair Hadar Geller. They met on Thursday, February 20th, the panel interviewed five applicants for one unscheduled immediate vacancy on the commission. The commission vacancy was left by former commissioner Ron Schallowicz. After discussion and careful review, the panel recommended the following resident, Ms. Shabnam Shally Azizi. If the council approves, she would be eligible for an initial two year term, which would begin on April 1st of this year, and conclude on June 30th of 2027. She will be eligible for a reappointment to a second term of four years per the municipal code with City Council approval at that time. This vacancy will be filled immediately with City Council approval, once if you are okay with that. And that miss just a note that Ms. Azizzi will have an additional three months to her term in order to return to the city's normal recruitment cycle. This was an unscheduled vacancy and we thought that would be the best way to go back to the normal cycle. Again, the interview panel recommended Ms. Azizi to the traffic and parking commission for an initial term of two years. She has cleared the city's background check. And since this is an expedited process, should you concur to the recommendation. A formal consent report has already been placed on this evening's agenda for your consideration. And that concludes my report. Okay, thank you. Thank you, we'll go to the Layows on report, Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes, thank you very much. I think it's a great job, Huma. There were five very highly qualified candidates. We enjoyed meeting with all of them. I wanted to thank Chair Aframaghan and Vice-Chair Geller for joining us. And I think that we were all unanimous with our decision, although we did feel very strongly about having a couple of the other candidates also reapply, so we'd like to encourage them to reapply because they were also very highly qualified. I think there's Additional positions that are going to be open is that correct? There is one additional position that is being recruited for and We did reach out to those candidates and they have all indicated they would like to reapply for that additional position as well excellence and So we just want to thank everyone we want to to thank Commissioner Ron also and this is in support of an expedited process to be able to approve tonight today and then bring to council for the official vote tonight. Okay. Council Member Mershane. Do you like to add? No, nothing. Yeah. Okay. So then go to councilmember comments if any and direction. Councilmember Wells. Okay. Thank you. Thank you to the commissioners until our liaison for conducting the interview process and making this recommendation. I know it's as easy. I think she's a parent at our school. She's also an attorney. She's been wanting to be more involved in the city, so I'm thrilled that she's up for this opportunity and I would definitely recommend her highly. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Korman. Thank you. Well, I haven't had a chance to meet Ms. ZZ, but I did get a chance to look at her application. She seems very qualified and appears to be an excellent recommendation, so I support it. Okay, and Council Member Mirish, and Council Member Nizerean. Yes. And I am supportive also. Right. And Mayor, just so you know, we do not have any public comment for this item. Okay, thank you. There was a subtle hint that was not so subtle. Okay. in May or just so you know we do not have any public comment for this item. Okay thank you. There was a subtle hint that was not so subtle. Okay we'll go to item number A2 update to the city's 2025 legislative platform. And Manjiejang is going to present on it. In concert with, Matt Golan of Davis. But afternoon, Mayor Friedman and City Council members, I'm Mandy Jang, Senior Management Analyst and City Manager's Office. This item provides an overview of recommended revisions made to the 2024 legislative platform for the 2025 legislative session. The legislative platform is adopted each year by City Council and outlines the city's position on legislative matters for the current legislative year and provides direction to city staff as well as our legislative advocates to respond quickly in representing the city's position on legislation that arise from local state and federal government. A little background on the process. On February 20th, the legislative lobby liaison committee comprised of Vice Mayor Nazarian and Council Member Mirish reviewed and approved 25 proposed changes and made recommendations for three new ones for the platform. At this study session, staff is requesting direction from City Council on the proposed changes. Council could approve some, all or none of the proposed changes, and may also request additional modifications to the platform today. The proposed changes would require majority council concurrence, and that will be included in the final version, which is tentatively scheduled to be brought back on the April 22nd formal meeting. So to capture the highlights from the committee meeting, I'll present on the three newest proposed by the committee for council's consideration. The first one is to support and seek sponsorship or co-sponsorship for legislation legislation enhancing the regulation of substance use disorder residential group homes. Of note, this topic currently has some by camera support and Sacramento. There's currently four bills authored by legislators on both the Senate or the assembly regarding regulating substance use disorder recovery group homes. So that is currently being monitored by staff in our state lobbyists. And the second one states support and co-sponsor legislation that ensures ethnic studies, curriculums and programs that will not contain anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist materials and should include the Jewish experience. Lastly, the third one states the city does not support sanctuary city laws imposed upon cities when state legislation precludes cities from cooperating with federal law enforcement. So to recap, staff is requesting direction from council on the proposed changes and you can approve some all or none of the proposed changes. Any modifications would require majority concurrence to be included in the platform. It concludes my presentation. Okay, we will open it up to public comment. If anyone has public comment on this item, that would be the opportunity not seeing anyone in chambers. Do we have anybody electronically? We don't have any public comment on this item. Okay, so we will go to the liaison report and who wants to give that. I'll start and we'll have Council Member Marish come in as well. So this is a legislative year to be able to respond quickly a lot of times bills are being passed or things are coming before us and we don't have the timeline to be able to have a full council meeting. So we try to represent what we've continued to talk about and take a strong stance on safety, environmental issues without too many many unnecessary restrictions that would inhibit businesses. So we tried to be mindful of that. As was mentioned, there were three new areas. The substance use disorder group housing, because we've seen some of these areas taken over, complete streets being taken over by groups purchasing the homes and it really has impacted the quality of life for the residents. So we wanted to be mindful of that and bring that to the group's attention. The second one was co-sponsoring legislation that ensures ethnic study curriculums and programs do not contain anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist materials and should include partially the Jewish experience. I think that we both agreed on that portion. The last one was that the city does not support sanctuary city laws imposed upon city council. And this was something that council member Marish and I were not in agreement with. I just don't think that that's something we need to specify in our legislative platform. But I'm happy to learn more and hear from him about what his thoughts are and then we could go from there. Councillor Murrish. As to the last point, I feel we don't necessarily need to mention sanctuary city laws. We can specifically simply say that we intend on complying with or working together with all levels of law enforcement, which would include federal law enforcement. But the idea is that we're not going to flout or defy federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing immigration or other federal laws. And I feel that that's already something that we do as a city and it's kind of understood. We always follow state law. It's not something that we need to kind of specify and bring out. Well, it's not this isn't state law. This would be federal law. Well, federal law, we abide by that as a city. Because there are so many cities where they're being given instructions not to comply or whatever. I just think clarifying that again again, you don't need to use the word sanctuary city or say that we're a non-sexuary city like some others did, but that we're quite the opposite. A law enforcement city that we intend on cooperating with law enforcement authorities at all levels. I think just spelling that out makes it clear and leaves no room for doubt where there is, there are other cities doing other things. That was my follow-on. And again, how the wording on that, we, you know, not wedded to any of that. So as just a general comment, I would add that it appears to me, it always has been that this legislative platform, I think Vice Mayor Nazarian said it and I know Mandy said it too. This is a quick way to have matters that we can respond to. And to me it's always been either opposed certain types of legislation or support certain types of legislation. And I'm seeing really for the first time seeking sponsorship and things like that. So I think we need to have comment on that. It's the first time I've seen things like that in there. And I'm not sure that that is in keeping with what we have done in the past in terms of either saying we support or oppose. But we'll go around the... Well, I mean, I think the main point is to support or oppose. And I think the sponsorship is an aside. I mean, that's sort of like we are going to support legislation that includes the Jewish experience, oppose legislation that doesn't, or that includes, or allows for anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist materials, and sort of as an aside, I don't even need to have it in there, but we would consider sponsoring it, is that's the aside, I would say. I think that needs to come to the council anyway if we're going to co-sponsor legislation and it should. And recently I was in Sacramento and that was one of the requests that some of our assembly members and state representatives mentioned that they would be happy to co-sponsor bills or at least for us to say that we give our support. Support, yeah. I think that's my point. But again, I didn't want to, I just wanted to throw that out so we can discuss it as we go around the world. Sure. It's just I haven't seen that type of language in terms of sponsorship and whether or not that is appropriate. I think if you add would consider sponsoring because it's going to have to come separately to the council. This wouldn't be like certain things that are for home rule. We can approve without coming back to the council. I think if we did something to consider it, making clear it would have to specifically come back to the council, that would work. But that we're going to be supportive of bills that obviously or opposing bills that are anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism. And maybe I can just ask that question. The sponsors of a bill aren't those generally the legislatorism selves or is it our entities sponsored such as? Yeah, so generally it is legislators but they may seek city support. With that said, I think one of the reasons why we typically don't include sponsorship language is it's a heavy lift and with the way that bills travel through the houses with amendments, I think it kind of puts us at a level of commitment that we may require serious consideration. Because bills change as they go through that grinder process. Correct, yes. But less, there are definitely, I mean some of these organizations we've gotten letters from today have co-sponsored, like in this case, housing legislation. So cities and other organizations absolutely can sign on as co-sponsors. Well, don't they sign on as supporters of it? And sometimes co-sponsors. Co-sponsor is a higher level, I would say, than a supporter. And I think there are certain subjects of which we are, take a leadership role, we discuss this at the mayor's summit against anti-Semitism when it comes specifically to that issue where it would be appropriate for us to consider being a co-sponsor. But again, I think that is something that should not be, even if it's in the legislative platform, should not be a gimmie, it should be something that comes back to the council for discussion before we- I agree, I think we would have to come back to council so that we know the details of what the bill would. Okay, so let's go around. At least the subject matter is now thrown out there. Let's start with council member Wells. All right, thank you so much. And thank you for the liaison for going through this and being on that committee, I appreciate it. I just looking at the three that the committee proposed, I agree with the first two. I would also agree that it sounds like there is already it's moving along so we don't need to say sponsor for the first one with regard to the substance. Yes, so I can simply strike back for the language really. And then for the second one. He said the first one is it. I would have a refer to as the first three because the substance was the first one that I mentioned. Substance of you. Substance of you. Maybe I could just bring more. I would have a refer to as the first three because the substance was the first one that I mentioned substance of you substance of you is maybe I could you bring more I would probably I apologize councilmember was can you put back the previous slide Thanks because I was going by memory yeah, so on the first one I supported but because it sounds like there's already legislation that's happening I would Based on our conversation and take out the Sikh sponsorship co-sponsorship because it's happening And for the second one I would do the same support I think that this is an ongoing This is an ongoing topic that I think the city's been very local about. I think there was a resolution that in probably 2021 that this city made with regard to ethnic studies curriculum when it was first coming out in terms of making certain that there is not anti-semitism in the curriculum. So I think that we should continue to strongly support it and behind that as well. For the third one, if I look at local control based on the actual document, if we go to page two of that document, on the third bullet point, it says, oppose preemption of the City of Beverly Hills local authority, whether by state or federal legislation or ballot proposition. So I feel like that may cover what you're talking about there. So we wouldn't need to make a change. So I would eliminate the third one because I feel like we have it in local control right now. In addition to that, I have a couple other items I'd like to have considered by My council members, going to... Sorry, I need it's under fiscal. get under fiscal. All right, I'm going to skip ahead to, yes, okay. I'm going to go to transportation. On the second bullet point, it says support legislation which would allow local jurisdictions to install speed enforcement cameras. On that bullet point, I'm aware that there's two different speed camera pilot programs that are going on based on, I guess, AB645, I think it is. And they just added another one for SB1297, which is for Malibu is another pilot program. So if we could put any language there supporting expanding the pilot to other cities as well expanding the pilot and or expediting that pilot, right now I think it's a five year pilot. I know that they're seeing a lot of positive data that this program works and I would any legislation that would support expediting or expanding the pilot so that we could participate in that I would be very interested in supporting. And you may also add to that bill of point or maybe keep it separate is the addition of the cameras for the stop signs for the, that was added.. But I don't know if you, whatever you recommend, they're similar. And then for under public works for utilities and water and utilities, it's on page 14. Number one, it says support the Delta Convance Project as it will assist with protecting the water supply for Beverly Hills. I would add and support funding for the Delta Convance Project. That's actually being funded through Met by P's. I mean, I think the funding is there. I would support the state funding. Sure, be quite if they would fund it. The Met we're paying, we're participating. We're paying. So if it's funding, it would also, I wouldn't just blanket, say funding because I don't know what that means But if the state were to provide funding or just provide support for that project to continue I would sure very much support that other definitely not Let's see I had one other one under I think it's public safety. Sorry for the delay. I wrote it. I wanted to add some sort of language that basically support legislation for cities to, I'm trying to see where I wrote the language, support legislation that holds, provides cities an opportunity to hold their neighboring jurisdictions accountable to enforce their fire code regulations. So we have a situation that we've seen in the fires where there's, you know, along our city lines, our neighbors are not necessarily following the quote that the fire code regulations in terms of brush clearance and what have you and we don't really have much recourse. So if there's any legislation that provides city's the ability to hold their neighboring jurisdictions accountable, I would support that. So I'm just wondering on the public safety, one of the bullet points we have already says support legislation provides funding for programs that are critical to fire suppression, fire prevention, and emergency medical services, doesn't that cover it? It's not the funding, it's what do you do if our neighboring jurisdiction isn't code compliant in the sense of clearing their brush. We can't go over there and clear it for them, but it hits us at risk as a city. It's how do we hold our neighbors accountable for that? It could be the cities, it could be Franklin Canyon, it could be DWP. So what if it's said funding and funding and we're in funding and and the enforcement of enforcement. No, no, no, that's what I'm going to say. Well, again, this is the way I'm reading this and maybe I'm wrong is that this is what we are asking our legislators to support. So I'm asking for our legislators to put in some sort of ability for cities to be able to hold their neighboring jurisdictions accountable. If it's affecting their security from wildfires. if they're not upholding their fire code regulations. Does that make sense? Okay. We just don't have any recourse in that way. But again, all we're asking for, I mean, to Craig's point, or at least what I think is point is is are we going to start suing our neighbors because they're not enforcing something. I'm not suggesting that we see our neighbors, but there is no reporting or anything to do where you can hold accountable our neighbors and that does put us at risk from a fire safety standpoint. I certainly agree with the concept. I'm just not sure what the legislation would be. And I don't know what that answer is either, but that's not. Is that the one that you just mentioned? Support wildfire-related legislation that provides funding opportunities to bolster community resilience to areas located in the very high fire hazard severity zones. I didn't get that far, but yeah, that was good too. Don't you think that it covers it in that as well? I understand what you're saying. I agree with it. I just don't know what we look at. We look at Tuesday. We look at the Lincoln Canyon. These are issues that have come up a lot since the last fire. So I was just looking for some sort of ability for cities that are put at risk because of that. Okay, anything else? My last one was... I think that is it. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Councilmember Korman. Okay. Thank you. So thank you for the detailed report. With respect to the three proposed additions from the liaison committee or the ad hoc committee. I support the first two. I would delete the reference to sponsorship in both of them because my understanding is the same as the mayor's. It's the legislature's sponsor. And even if we were technically a sponsor, then we've got a bird dog, the thing all the way along and that could be a little onerous. So we certainly support the legislation that's being referenced in the first two, but I wouldn't, I would leave the sponsor, co-sponsorship language. On the third one, I would probably just stay out of the subject. If you drop the sanctuary city reference completely, what you wind up with is something that's fairly innocuous, but I don't know if it does anything. You could say the city does not support state legislation that would preclude cities from cooperation with federal law enforcement, but I don't know if that really does much. So I would just drop it, especially if we're not going to say sanctuary. See, I don't see a reason to weigh in on it. We are not going to be passing sanctuary city laws ourselves and I think that's the message we want to send. On the, on some other matters, on the transportation, one of the priorities that was suggested, it says support led, the report indicates that it's, we're concerned with the vehicle design and size of autonomous vehicles. The language is proposed isn't limited to autonomous vehicles, so I assume what we wanted that, it said the language is support legislation that develops safety standards and performance measures for vehicles permitted to operate in city streets. I think we've met autonomous vehicles from what I could tell. I would suggest putting the word autonomous and to make it clear that's what we're talking about. Just for autonomous or would it be all vehicles? Well, I mean, we certainly support all vehicles but I think that's already being done. I think the idea was we wanted to specify autonomous vehicles because that's the emerging technology. Let's see. With respect to the transportation legislative platform, I did have an opportunity to have discussion with Rich Chavez-Burr about the speed camera legislation and the stop sign camera legislation. And specifically we were talking about the pilot program that was expanded to Malibu because of the horrific crashes and the particular that took out that killed five pepperedine, I think five pepperedine students. My understanding from our conversation is that there is not an ability to expand that program to other jurisdictions. He suggested that we cooperate with some of our neighboring cities to draft and sponsor some new legislation. So rather than draft on the preexisting one, I think we have to come up with something new. So I think that's what we should do. As far as the... Classifier, wait, you mean? Sorry. Oh, I think we should liaise with specifically Santa Monica and Culver City of express interest in this type of legislation. So we should talk to them about coming forward with a unified proposal on the subject. An addition, Wes Hollywood is interested in doing that as well. Yes, that's correct. Uh, I left them out there. When I was in when I was in Sacramento, I was speaking with less Hollywood about it. I think the mayor Chelsea buyers is interested. So, um, and then lastly, uh, with respect to the fire suppression and legislation, uh, I agree would be great for our neighboring cities to carefully police their fire hazard laws. I don't think it's practical for us to have our own private cause of action against them. I think that you'd like to think they would do the right thing and protect their own residents. But they're also state mechanisms to bring to bear too if we have to. So I just think that having a private ride of action or a cost of action of city against city isn't the best policy. And if you create it, some of them might come after us for something, not they would have a basis, but I just don't think we need to deal with us kind of lawsuits. So those are my reactions to the proposals. And I wanna say something, and I didn't wanna put words in, and I hope I didn't in Mary's suggestion, because I don't think that she suggested there being a private cause of action. She just wanted more teeth in the legislation. So I apologize if we went down a wrong. It wasn't my intention at all that that it was that there's some sort of accountability for cities to make certain that they are enforcing their own as well as it's not just cities because sometimes it could be DWP, it could be, you know, it could be the different parks or not parks, but it's not just cities that are responsible. So, so absolute legal action, what kind of teeth would you suggest? I don't know what the, I don't know what the answer is for that, but there isn't right now there's nothing that can be done for cities When we know that there were at a higher risk because of that From a reporting or someone else enforcing there's not much that we can do I clarify councilmember rolls were you suggesting at state level enforcement not city to city level enforcement? Yes, this is legislated. If I can just put out this comment, I believe there are some more enforcement actions coming down the state. If not active already, requiring more fire hazard mapping and also in light of the recent fires in January, brush clearance and protecting the communities is probably top of mind for every city. With that said, yeah, that's my comment. So, you know, I think it's a good idea. I'm just wondering if we can work on some language that- I think we'd have to restructure to say support something along the lines of support legislation that provides cities or Beverly Hills an opportunity to support any state legislation to hold cities accountable for fire code. Yes. Something along those lines, not bull massages. That's how I meant to say it. So instead of neighboring cities, that mentioned would be taken out to make it clear that it's state holding cities accountable or counties For their fire and I apologize for going down a road that I know you didn't want to go down. It's okay Thank you, okay Well, I think obviously the focus of our legislative platform is local control and I think there are certain things that are obvious that we're going to support or not support. I think the two things, when we talk about sponsorship, I think if you take it out, that's fine. I would be okay also if we had consider because ultimately if we're going to co-sponsor a bill which we can in some cases if something is important to us as ethnic studies for example maybe we should be a co-sponsor and It's not just legislators that sponsor it. You've got groups all the time NGOs and sometimes cities that do sign on that are that they're using there if you will they're good name as capital to try and get something fast. And when it comes to working against BDS, I think that's something where we are at and have been at the forefront and should continue to be. But as set, I think in those cases, we would want to specifically bring those bills back. And we would have to track them. If there's a gut in the men in a bill that we're talking about that's an anti-BDS bill becomes a bill to allow sports online sports gambling, then obviously I think we would change that or support. I think it's one thing when it comes to the, whether you call it sanctuary cities, or simply, as I had suggested, a pro law enforcement city. I think in a state where you have people who are actively flouting cooperation with the feds, when it comes to a variety of laws, I think it is important for us not to just simply say, well, we do cooperate, we will. I think that's a policy statement that we should be making. And as I said at the liaison, I certainly do not believe that we need to call ourselves like Huntington Beach did in anti-sanctuary city. I don't even think we need to mention sanctuary city, but I do think that we should make it clear that we are a pro law enforcement city and that law enforcement includes not just state laws but also with the federal government when it comes to a variety of issues that there are no bones about it. And especially as said when you have other cities now that are making declarations that they're not going to cooperate, I think it just clarifies things. But aside from that I do like our, you know, I think our legislative platform has largely remained the same. There are a few tweaks here and there and that sort of thing and that's what we tried to look at when it comes to some of the other suggestions. Yes, that we want to make sure that we and other cities do brush clearance and all of those things. I'd support small tweaks to that as well. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor. Thank you. So I understand the state and federal law enforcement, but I think that it's kind of something that's already understood. I don't foresee us standing up against that and I don't think that people view our city in that way, which is the other two, as mentioned, I would support. The only area that I wanted to touch upon is the sponsorship and co-sponsorship that did come up several times during our Sacramento trip. And I think that it's just important to let our legislators know that if it's a there's an issue or there's a topic that our city stands strongly behind that we would be willing to co-sponsor it or support it. They value our position that was mentioned several times. They value the city's position on various legislation and so I don't where, perhaps it could be an additional line that's set, but in areas this was something that did come up especially with regard to antisemitism. They know that our cities always stood up and been a strong voice. And so to make that clear one way or another, I don't know what the best way to include that would be, I certainly wouldn't want to be a sponsor of every one of these items that we've suggested here. But I think that there were a few where we did say that we would be willing to co-sponsor. And we would bring those to the specific. And those would, therefore, if there was a suggestion or request, they would be brought to council for further discussion to ensure that we are on the same page and an agreement with that. But it's something that we, it's still, the doors open to that. This is a tool and something that is shared with our legislation. So we just felt that it would be helpful to make our view clear. Okay, so let me take these three first and I have a couple other comments I think. I'm still of the opinion that this document is not one that where you would seek sponsorship or co-sponsorship. If somebody wants to come, if there's an item that the legislation, Layas on Fields is important, they always have the ability to come to the entire Council and ask for it. I've always perceived this document as being one for staff to make those decisions on a fairly quick basis. I know as Mayor, I've signed some of these because, and I asked, is this in line with our legislative program, and then I can sign off on it because sometimes there's only two, three days and it has to go out right away. So that's why I'd like to just leave it the way it is. And again, if something comes up, absolutely, on both of those issues, I'd be interested in discussing it. I want to make one thing clear on number two, so that nobody thinks that this is the first time that we are putting something like this in our legislative platform. And that is we have for many, many, many many many years had a bullet saying support legislation which prioritizes fighting anti-semitism hate crimes and domestic terrorism. So this is not the first time that we're approaching this. I don't think anybody here would have necessarily thought that but I think this is an extension of it and is important to be there because we are going to have, as we saw, Rhode Island, Brown University, Brown University with their publishing arm of educational materials coming out with anti-Semitic information within textbooks. Okay, through it. And do you know who funded it? Yeah, I do. People you're not going to go through that joke. Making friends. Yeah. And I just don't want to go into the sanctuary city thing. I mean, we have been, we have a long history of supporting law enforcement. I think we're, Beverly Hills is almost synonymous with supporting law enforcement. And I just don't want to go down that road with the Sanctuary City laws. I would not be supportive of that. Let me see if there's anything else here. My comments, it doesn't look like we talked about, we were seeking a sponsor also under transportation. I would also not be supportive of the language in that one. That's ticketing and fractions. I just not supportive of getting a putting it in a legislative platform whether we're going to sponsor something. We talked about that one and we talked about that one. And those are my only comments. So we have somewhat clear direction. So we briefly recap for a couple of these. Councilmember Wells wanted to add something. Sorry I had one more that I forgot to mention. And it's just under the public works for water and utilities. The last bullet point says support legislation which improves the reliability of public utilities. And I would like to add something more specific about holding public utilities accountable for upgrading aging infrastructure and providing consistent reliable service. But you could say it's general enough but I think it could be a little more specific. Okay. Anybody have comments on that last addition? I'd have to see it, I think. I agree. So would it read as support legislation which improves reliability? I'm sorry, support legislation. Holding infrastructure upgrades to provide reliable service. Can we do a red line perhaps as a consent item, as a C item or a consent item? Because I think that there were several changes that were made to this and we need to be able to have consensus on it and I don't know. To clarify this is coming back to you as a formal item at which point we would but we want to account for that to make sure that that report is accurate so it would come back on April 22nd meeting. Perfect. By the way I would support getting the state to pay for the Delta in Vance infrastructure. Great. Just a couple of brief recaps as we did have some items. So under transportation, the red line mayor, your recommendation was to also strike seek sponsor for from that. Let's see, one, two. Seeking sponsorship versus co-sponsorship. You don't want you to even seek a sponsor for something. I think that's something that should come to us as an item. If it's that important, I think it should come to us. That's at least my position on it. Do we have consensus on that? So I think if you wrote consider, then that means it must come back to the council. That would be a way of not making it automatic. I think it's different from seeking sponsor versus co-sponsor, actually committing to co-sponsor, but if you are uncomfortable, we can take it out. I mean, again, when it comes back as an item, we can go through it. And I'll do a little bit more homework on the sponsorship portion of it. So, and see what it involves. Again, bills do change along the way. Once our name is attached to something, it kind of stays there. And I don't think we have that kind of presence where we're going to be right on the spot and say we're now withdrawing our sponsorship. If we're not watching it that carefully and it shows last couple of weeks I think everything has to be in writing now 10 days, seven days before something like that. We're not watching it that carefully, it can slip by. So the bills, the spot bills are basically due to be fleshed out by end of this one for both assembly and senate. So we will soon see how they really look and then things will start moving fast. And if I could also perhaps add this recommendation instead of including words like sponsoring or co-sponsoring because if we commit to it, the City of Beverly Hills name would like show up on the bill and stick with it no matter how it changes. Perhaps council members can direct staff, you know, administratively to bring this draft or item for consideration in the form of a staff report and it would just step by step, you know, we'll work through our lobbyists. Perhaps this is a way to bring into the joint items back and not have to. Okay, we need more clarification. So to summarize, please help. So what I heard was we're going to look at the seek sponsor language. I heard maybe three-ish to remove it, but we will do a bit more research on that. Page two of the report, we will say autonomous vehicles. to clarify if I can keep going through the vehicles. So to clarify, just for you Council member Corman, that was not a typo. Electric vehicles are bigger in size, they are faster and they was also intended to target sport vehicles, vehicles that have been like had modifications, like performance sports cars. So it was intended to be all vehicles. We did have artificial intelligence in there, but it was intended to be a bit broader per public works. That's fine. Then we don't have to add autonomous. It seemed like from the report that that was where the report was going. So that's fine. I think you. Yes. So we'll keep that broad. I know these folks will appreciate it from public works. We also had, I believe, the two new ones just to make sure support for expanding or expediting the pilots for installation of speed enforcement cameras. We heard from Council Member Wells and Korman on new legislation drafts perhaps rather than expand or expedite, we would support with our neighbors new legislation. And would that bullet point, the second one on transportation on page 9 suffice as is or would you like to adjust support legislation which would allow the local jurisdictions to install speed enforcement cameras? I have a question about that and maybe actually it's for a council member Korman. When you talk to Rick's about the Malibu pilot, did he mention anything about AB 645? I think that's six cities? I think he said that our senator was instrumental in negotiating the expansion, and part of the deal was that would be the only expansion of that program. Of the 645 by making AB- One, to expand the pilot program that involves Los Angeles to Malibu, right? Got it. And what he also suggested is obviously we're a little late in the game for this legislative session, but we should be working with our fellow cities to come forward with something proposal that he could support in the next legislative session. The Australian in 27. Okay. So with the bullet as it stands, I believe that would allow us to seek that support from our city, our neighboring cities and others. Yes. That's fine. Yeah. The last three for the Delta Convance Project, State Funding 4, or some language about that would be added to the Delta Convance Project bullet point. recommendation for council member Wells. Have consensus on adding support for state funding? Yes, okay. The next one under the same category of water and utilities would be support legislation for accountable for aging infrastructure. And then the last one, which I believe we had consensus for. And the final one under public safety. I believe we do have consensus for adding a new bullet point for legislation that provides the state to hold City is accountable for fire code. I would want to see what that looks like. So we should include it as a draft for the formal session. We would hold other cities accountable. I mean, it's clearly that it has to be the state that does it. Not a state that we would have made. Is there not now a mechanism where we could alert a state agency of a problem with a neighbouring jurisdiction? Not a current. I I don't know if we can have that. Here we go. Fire Chief coming up. I was avoiding calling him up. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Thank you. So right now we have no enforcement. In the example that was brought up is Franklin Canyon, which is Santa Monica Mountains. We have no enforcement over there. The property that's off Lago Vista, we can get within 20 feet of the city boundary and after that we have no enforcement. Same with if you come and off the back or down off of Cherokee and stuff. We have no enforcement. That's the city of LA. Now we reach out and make requests and try to do it, fire department to fire department even elected as well in the city, but we just don't have any teeth. But is there, so I understand that. Is there a mechanism where you could go to us, an agency at the state level and get them to force the neighboring jurisdiction to enforce their fire codes? We've reached out in the state fire marshal won't take that up. All right, then that's legislation we should support. Yep. Thank you. Very good. You said it's coming back, second meeting in April. Yes. Yes. Your formal session. Yep. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now go to a three. 2024 general plan housing element annual report. Yeah,. We have a hard stop at 430, which is 1 hour. Okay, thank you, Mayor Friedman. Good afternoon, Council Members. This item is the 2024 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report. The Annual Progress Report, or APR, provides an update on the city's progress over the past calendar year, implementing the various actions, policies, and goals of the general plan, with a specific portion dedicated to the housing element. As required by state law, after your review today, the APR will be sent to state agencies HCD and LCI. And this item was previously presented to the Planning Commission on February 27th. The comments provided by the Commission have been incorporated into the report presented today. The APR includes a summary of accomplishments from each of the city's departments and notes how each accomplishment furthers the goals and objectives of the general plan. And shown here are just a few accomplishments from 2024. Some of note are that the Burton Way Green Street project was completed, which will conserve an estimated 5 million gallons of water annually. The city continued to conserve its water usage and to diversify water sources with two new ground water wells. The soft-story retrofit program continued to ensure that buildings are reinforced and made safer from a seismic safety point of view. And the city continued to invest in public safety infrastructure with the installation of beacon boxes and high fire areas and outdoor emergency sirens and with a successful completion of over 13,000 flights by the drone first responder program and the housing element of the general plan was also certified by the state. And the housing element portion of the report also details the city's progress towards meeting the regional housing needs assessment or rena allocation. In 2024 a total of 82 permits for new housing units were issued, which included 17 affordable lower or moderate income units. And this brings the city's total rena progress count to 215 units since the start of the current house cycle in 2021. And as a reminder, the city may only count units from issued building permits towards the arena count. However, the pipeline of housing units that is anticipated to be counted towards the arena in the future includes 189 new units approved through planning entitlements, 253 units that are currently in the plan check process, and 285 units in pending projects that have been deemed complete for a total of 727 units in the pipeline. And with that, staff recommends that the City Council receive public comment and the report and direct staff to submit the report to the state. And this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, and we'll open it up to public comment on this item. Anyone in chambers would like to comment on it. Now would be the time. Not seeing any will go to electronic means. We do not have any comments on this item. Okay, so we will go to council member, comments, questions and comments. Thank you for this report. It's really fantastic to see all the work that's been done in this past year. So congratulations to all of you for all of this work and the report. It was really easy to understand. I have a question on this presentation. When you talked about the 215 units as well as the remaining 727, so combined, is it combined? The 727 combined, or is that included the 215? The 727 only includes the ones on the right shown here in yellow. So the 215 we've already counted. The 727 is anticipated to be counted. So we're at about 943 units. Right. OK. Just a few thousand more to go. The other thing I just wanted to highlight is, if you could just speak a little bit about the process for the mixed use overlay zone, what you're looking at with that as well as for the adaptive reuse with Gensler and how that project is going, how that's going so far. Sure. So one of the action items in the housing element is for the city to study the mixed use overlay zone regulations and to see how those can be improved to better encourage development in that zone, which is where the majority of the housing units are allocated in our site inventory and the housing element. And so the city has contracted with Gensler and a couple other consultant teams to start that study. And so far we have held a focus group meeting with the development and business community. And we've also held an internal city staff meeting. And then we also have an upcoming public community meeting on Tuesday, March 25th, at 6.30 p.m. and the municipal gallery here and also available online to join. And so it's really designed to be a listening session just to get some feedback from the public before the consultant prepares some findings to then come back and bring those to the community and the commission and council for review. Okay, thank you. I look forward to seeing what those recommendations are so that we can see if we can improve on making that these, this area be more active. So thank you. I have no further questions. And any other comments? Comments were made also, right? Thank you. Councilmember Corbyn. Thank you. Thanks for the detailed report. Questions. So we have, I'm not sure how we add all these numbers up, but we have a lot of units in the pipeline and have already been approved. How does that for all the people who claim we are no in our backyard people? How does that compare to prior periods of, you know, in the recent history of the city as far as development is concerned, number of units? So I've been here for about 18 years or so and I will say that the number of units that we have both entitled within the last year or two and also the ones that are currently in the pipeline for processing, it is far and away the most number of units that we've ever had in progress in the city. I would argue that probably what we have going on at present day is probably more than the combined number of units over the last 15 years in the city. Okay. Thanks. That's what I thought for my time with the planning commission. So this is these are a lot of units and I think we are making headway and our obligations to provide housing. So those are my comments and thank you. Okay. Council Member Mirish. Thank you for the report. Of course, especially in light of what Ryan just said, more units in the past year so than in combined the last 15 years, and still eons away from meeting the rena figures, which obviously are unrealistic and the methodologies absurd. I think we're're gonna find that when cities meet the half cycle, that I can't imagine there will be more than 1% if even that of cities throughout the state that are gonna actually hit the figures. And that's going to say something because it's gonna mean streamlining in a way. And that may have been the goal is to set cities up for failure. But I find it difficult to consider failure when we are in light of what Ryan just said, have more units in the pipeline than what we had in the last 15 years combined. So the system is broken. And we need to do something to fix it. And we need to be honest about what's motivating it. And we need to hook up with other cities as well and try and build a common front because what is happening is not urban planning, it's urban reacting. And there's a group of people who want to eliminate zoning. Let's face it because they think it's their market fundamentalists or whatever. And of course, zoning is urban planning. And urban planning means that there should be single-family neighborhoods, which by the way is what 70% plus of Americans of all colors, stripes, you name it, groups, dancing abilities like. And there should be ultra-dense housing for those who like it too, and there is. But that's's what's called urban planning And what we see from the state is the desire to eliminate urban planning and to allow developers to do whatever they want and as said It's not urban planning. It's urban reacting then so I appreciate the report. I know it's frustrating It it is not only frustrating. I think you could use a few adjectives or well-earned, Huxley and Kafka-esque perhaps, but thank you for that and we all need to be aware of this and try and take action and try and work with our supposedly colleagues or representatives and Sacramento, Sacramento who are supposed to actually be representing us in our communities and the communities of other cities that are faced with this situation and not special interests. Thank you. Thank you and Vice Mayor. Thank you very much for the report. I have a few basic questions. One, just in case is included in this report for planning commission. Can you speak to that? What is the relevance of that here as it relates to housing? Sure. So the general plan in a report also details the different accomplishments that each department had over over the past calendar year. The Justin Case Program actually was started, I believe, the previous year, maybe in 2023 or 2022. But there was a reference to it and the Planning Commission wanted to make that a little bit more known and publicized. So we added a little bit more information based on their comment. Great, thank you so much. There seems to be the safety in the section for on page 5 safety and emergency responses, the fire prevention, and we're going to have the speakers speaking out. The order of the languages that were mentioned is English, Spanish, and Farsi. I don't know what the demographics of our community is, but I would venture to say that we should do English, Farsi, and then Spanish, but perhaps that's something we could look at in the census or see what how that conveys, because I like it imagine as somebody sitting in the house waiting until they understand what's happening on those sirens and is being expressed. So let's see who is impacted. You're welcome to speak to it, Chief. But you know, I would just want whoever, whatever are largest demographics is whether it's Spanish or English speaking that be mentioned first. I don't know the answer to it but. Vice Mayor, we can make that change. We'll look at it. Okay, Chair. Thank you very much. with regard to the housing that we're providing, do they need to fall still? Is it just any housing to fit our arena numbers or will it have to be the percentage of AMI and the income levels that have been suggested? So, the arena allocation does have a category for different income levels and so when the state looks at our progress they do look at our progress meeting each of those categories. So that's why we break down in the tables how many units are within each of these categories and then how many are within the above market category. The majority of our units are in the above market, sorry, above moderate category, which is market rate units. Okay, and so I guess one of the areas that I would also want to look at, I don't know if there's a way that we could address it in this report, is that several of the units that are being replaced are low income units, units and then they're not being required to be replaced with the same type of housing. And so that is displacing individuals who were in those facilities and are in those residents and now they've been removed from there. So I don't know if there's a way to address it or to bring it to somebody's attention. These laws are being made and they're not understanding the significant impact that it has on current renters in these units. So that would be... There is a state law that requires if there's existing protected units, so those if they are under the rent stabilization ordinance, those would be considered protected. The city has to do an analysis to see how many of those units need to be replaced in the new project. And so there is usually a portion of those that are replaced at affordable income levels, depending on the income levels of the existing tenants. If those- But not at the same income level that was originally, that's what I've been told by residents. So perhaps I have misinformation on that. I think if I may add a little clarification, I think what the vice mayor is suggesting is really more to do. So people do have, in certain the right to return to the building after the new units are constructed. But the issue is the gap of the two to four years between when the eviction happens and when the new construction is completed and able to be moved back into. Somebody does have to find housing for that gap period and that housing typically is going to be more expensive than what they were paying in the past. Just to bring clarity to that. I think that sometimes laws are made and they don't understand the significant impact that it has on people and how is that supposed to be addressed. I think that my colleagues kind of have the same idea. I, among my questions, we're also how units do we currently have in Beverly Hills? And over the course, I mean, can you speak to that? How many units total are exist in Beverly Hills? All housing, single family and multi-family. No, multi-family or units, all housing. All units, I think were somewhere around 15 to 16,000 units and and of that how many units are is the state forcing us to build 3,104 and so what percentage of our entire housing stock is that 20 percent yeah and and I guess the issue is with when we don't have a say in the location that makes it even more challenging so I'm happy that we're hitting the marks and their units in the queue that obviously that we're trying to build as quickly as possible we recognize that we want to contribute to this I think that we we need to have a much greater serious to locate the location of these units. And if there's a way that we could start looking at that, I think that's gonna be extremely important. Now, what happens if we don't fill our arena numbers? So there are some consequences as far as being able to apply for grant funding from the state. And then there is a state law called SB 35. It was recently updated by SB 423. And that requires a ministerial approval of certain projects meeting affordable thresholds. And so based on our progress with the arena, we'll either fall within one of those categories. We think that based on our progress we will probably be in the threshold that's a little bit higher for the affordable levels and so it would be a little bit better meaning that there would be probably fewer projects that meet those criteria. And of the projects that have been submitted thus far, how many have been approved versus rejected? I believe all projects so far have been approved that contain housing units. All projects? All of them. Oh, interesting. Okay, all right, great. So it shows that we are being supportive of our housing project and we're doing everything that we can to All state density bonus projects All right, thank you very much Thank you. Thank you for the written report and your Your explanations Question this report is due by a certain date to the state to H. That's correct. It's typically due April 1st. They extended the deadline due to the wildfires to April 15th, I believe. And every municipality has the same deadline date. That's correct. And do we then do an analysis in terms of how our progress towards arena numbers versus what other municipalities are doing? I think that information is available online through the state and we can take a look at that if it's not interested. And you know, probably we should just to see where we fall in terms of comparison. You know, I've always felt that HCD kind of looks at us a little more sharply than they look at other agencies. So, you know, I'd like to, I'd like us to at least have that background information. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, so with with that we are going to be able to go into our close session early so if we could have a roll call. Thank you there are two roll calls for close session first one is for council council member Wells here council member Cormin here council member Mirish vice mayor Nizarian here next is mayor Fried Friedman. And the next one is for the parking authority. Close session. Director Wells. Here. Director Corman. Director Mirish. Here. Vice Chair Nazarian. Here. And Chair Friedman. Here. And we have received some written public comments. Two were received that were too long to read but have been forwarded to the City Council and We'll be part of the official record the first one is from the California Housing Defense Fund and the other one is from Yimbi Law And then there is one other comment that has been provided as well if I may read that please This one is from Elise Baptist We are writing comment on the Dupont Clinic litigation. We start with a notion that is not usual in our litigious society. We ask the council to do what is right despite any judicial ruling in the city's favor. What is right is to act in the interests of women's health and women's reproductive rights. What is right is for the city to reach a fair resolution with Dupont Clinic allowing the clinic to open and operate. The California Attorney General found the city's action and violation of the California Constitution. The city's legal risks many not have ended, may not have ended with the Dupont Clinic ruling. We ask that you direct the city attorney to negotiate with the Dupont Clinic for a fair secure resolution so that the clinic may operate in Beverly Hills Please do not fail the women in our community in our state Supporting a resident a responsible woman's reproductive rights clinic in our city represents what is right? Please seriously consider these thoughts in your close session today and that concludes public comment on close session Okay, I just wanted to add that we were the comments that were too long to read a copy of each of those was placed on our place on the day and was reviewed. Okay so with that we will go into closed session for those items on our closed session agenda.