I . I heard. . Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear us? I can hear you now. I can hear you now. Perfect. Thank you. That's what I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to start in five, four, three, two, one. Welcome everyone. This is the City of Beverly Hills. City Council Special Meeting today is January 16th, 2025. It is 4.30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. And later than that, 7.30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. If we can start, I am doing this. I'm participating remotely as I am at the U.S. Conference of Mayor's Meeting in Washington, DC. If we can start with our roll call, if our city clerk will please do so. Thank you. This is the roll call for the special meeting for today. Council Member Wells here. Council Member Corman. Yes. Here. Council Member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. We'll start with telling everyone the telephone call-in number. The phone number is 310-288-2288. Members of the public are invited to listen to the meeting telephonically or share oral communications on this phone line. We will start with oral communications from anyone who is present in Council chambers and I'll ask the city clerk to start to state anyone who is there. We do not have any public comments for non-agenda at this time. Okay, so then we will go on to, well let me make a statement first. I want to take a moment this afternoon to mention that our next City Council meeting scheduled for January 28th, we plan to discuss adoption of a resolution that acknowledges international Holocaust Remembrance Day. This year marks a very important milestone as well. It has been 80 years since the end of the Second World War and the Holocaust. Our entire City Council is committed to ensuring that we safeguard the memory of Holocaust survivors as well as those who were brutally murdered. We will never forget this part of history as horrific as it was, and together we must always work toward ending any distortion and denial that this genocide took place. We hope that other cities across the globe also take this as an opportunity to adopt their own resolution to honor this important day of remembrance. With that, we will go to City Council continued new business, item number one, an ordinance of the city of Beverly Hills temporarily suspending restrictions on short-term rentals to address emergency housing needs and finding the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act if I could have an old report on this matter from the director of community development. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The first item before you this afternoon is an urgency ordinance that would suspend the city's restrictions on short-term rentals in residential areas. As the council is aware, the Los Angeles County wildfires and wind event have displaced thousands of individuals and families in the Los Angeles area, which has resulted in unprecedented regional demand for temporary housing. Short-term rentals started playing an important role in helping to meet the temporary housing needs of those displaced families and households. Currently the City of Beverly Hills restricts short-term rentals in two ways differently in single-family and multi-family areas. In single-family zones, you can do a short-term rental up to two times per year and a short-term rental is defined as any rental period of less than six months. In multi-family zones, we prohibit short term rentals entirely and a short term rental is defined as anything less than 30 days. The proposed ordinance before the council this evening would suspend both of those short term rental restrictions for the purpose of allowing emergency short term rentals. The ordinance is proposing a 90 day suspension approved tonight by the Council with the authority for the city manager to extend that up to an additional 90 days as needed. It would allow short-term rentals to occur in both single-family and multi-family areas subject to a few restrictions, just to ensure that the program is used as it's intended for emergency housing and not opened up generally to tourists or others. First the home must be rented to a household that is either in a current evacuation area or has been displaced as a result of the wildfire emergency and there would be a process by which we would verify that when the unit is registered with us. Consistent with price gouging laws, the rental rates would be limited to 10% above the rate that was most recently charged or advertised for the unit. And since typically it would have been monthly rental rates before and these would be daily rates, it would be the previous rate divided by 30 to come up with the daily rate. In addition, if it's a unit that has not been rented previously, such as an accessory dwelling unit or something like that, the rental rate would be set at 160% of the fair market rent established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that comes from state law provisions related to price gouging, and that varies on a zip code by zip code basis. The additional provisions of the proposed ordinance include exempting short-term rentals from the city's transient occupancy tax as well as exempting property owners of short-term rentals from the business tax if they are not already paying it for for other rental units or previously paying it for that unit. The purpose of exempting those taxes is because those are typically passed through to the tenants in the rent so for The purpose of exempting those taxes is because those are typically passed through to the tenants in the rent. So for the purpose of not putting undue financial burden on people in an emergency situation, we're proposing that those taxes just be waived to ensure that they're not passed through or exempted rather. In addition, the rent stabilization ordinance would not be applicable to a unit while it is being used as a short-term rental. So I just want to point out that the eviction protections of the rent stabilization ordinance would still be in place if the unit is occupied. So someone could not evict a current tenant just for the purpose of then converting it to a short-term rental. Those conditions would remain, but if the unit is currently vacant, and then someone wanted to use it as a short-term rental, it would be exempt from the RSO during that period that it's being used as an emergency rental. And then following that, it would revert back to a rent stabilized unit once the short-term use of that unit has ceased. As I mentioned earlier, the owner would also be required to register their short-term rental with us and provide documentation both on the eligibility of the tenant as being someone who lives in an area impacted by the fires or displaced by the fires as well as documentation on what the most recent charge door advertised rent is so that we can ensure that they're staying within the limits of what they're supposed to be charging. So our recommendation is that the council wave full reading and adopt the urgency ordinance that's before you this evening. As a reminder, because it is an urgency ordinance, it does require a four fifths vote of the city council for adoption. And if adopted, it would become effective immediately upon adoption. With that, I'd like to turn it over to the City Attorney who has a few additional comments on the ordinance. I met earlier today with Council Member Cormin and I passed out a red line version of the ordinance with a couple of comments that he had and that I agreed with and incorporated into the ordinance. And I've given that out to the member of the audience who's here. And I'd like to review them briefly with you. I believe that less has them on email. Mayor Freeman, I'm sorry. It's my apologize. My apologize, Mayor Friedman. So first he suggested that we use the terms from the zoning code which changed multi-family unit to multiple family dwelling unit and single family home to single family dwelling that occurs throughout you see it first in section 4 but that includes occurs throughout the ordinance also rather than saying previously charged or advertised price We thought we should reference The definition of rental price, which is essentially comes out to be the same thing, but the definition of rental price in the, in the penal code, which is actually the price gouging ordinance at the state level. So we did that. Also we stated in section 7 that the 160%, which is also from the state law, that can be increased by 5% if the single family dwellings are offered it fully furnished. You'll see the same change in sections 8 and 9, section 10, which suspends the RSO. For short term rental units, we added pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. And then in section 13, we thought that we should actually have the statement that should be included in any listing of the units for advertising. So it would read the per the City of Beverly Hills ordinance number and blank because we don't know what the ordinance number is yet. This unit may only be rented to a household displaced by or as a result of the Los Angeles Fire and Windstorm event of January 2025. And oh, and then also in section 15, there's a bullet point added. We previously said documentation of the most recent monthly rental rate charged, where applicable. And it should say there's a new bullet point which would also say documentation of the most recent monthly rental rate advertised when applicable. That would be those, and, Section 10, just this section 10 says RSO, alphabetical ability suspended for short term rental units. I thought we should said subject to the provisions of this ordinance. But Section 11 was supposed to parallel that. Trans-doctomy taxis suspended for short term rental units subject to the provisions of this ordinance. I don't have a problem with that. Hold on one second. I just want to check what my notes show. Okay, very good. So at this point, is there anyone in council chambers who would like to be heard on this matter? Yes, we have one speaker, Mr. Michael Tenor. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Michael Tenor. I'm here today on behalf of the peninsula Beverly Hills. I'd also like to say that Mr. offer Nissen Bomber, managing director, would have liked to have been here today, but he's currently at the hotel and very busy helping some of the fire victims get acclimated. We applaud the Council for taking such swift action to help the people that have been devastated by this tragedy. We also want to let the Council know and the public know that both our hotel and other hotels, Mr. Niesenbaum has been in communication with other hotels in our city. We have plenty of occupancy. And if there are any fire victims that need immediate assistance with lodging our hotel and the others are ready willing and able to help them right now and we just wanted to put that out there. Having said that there are a few minor points we want to bring up today that we hope you'll consider before adopting this resolution. First and foremost, we think that you should consider limiting this to a minimum of seven days. That if somebody is going to take advantage of this ordinance, that it should be at least a seven day stay at one of the short term rental places. The second issue we have has to do with the extension. We understand the 90 days that this is going to be an effect and we think that's smart and deserved. But if there's going to be a 90 day extension, we think that that should not happen just by the city managers fiat. We think that it should come back in front of city council. That will give all the people in the city and the hotels and opportunity to analyze the impact of this emergency ordinance and share our thoughts and comments and of its impact with you before you decide whether or not to grant another extension of up to 90 days. And last and certainly not least though, I want to address the TOT issue. As I read this proposed ordinance, gentlemen said, if a fire victim stays at a short term rental stay under this ordinance, they would be alleviated of the burden of paying the TOT, which we think is a good idea. Unfortunately, right now, a fire victim that's staying at any of our hotels is burdened with paying the TOT. And we think the same logic that applies to eliminating that if a fire victim is staying at a short terminal, should be applied to them if they're staying at a hotel in our city as well. And we'd like you to consider that concept and putting it into this emergency amendment as well. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I can sit back down and let you bring me back up if that works. Thank you so much for your time today. We really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in Chambers who would like to be heard on this matter? No, we have no other public comments for this item. And that includes emails also? Yes, that is correct. And includes phone or video correct? That is correct as well. I would like to thank the staff for the fact that they are correct as well. Are there any city council questions of staff or members of the public at this time starting with council member Wells? Thank you. I just have a couple questions. My first question would be when we talk about the definition. You go to page three. Section 14 B. When we talk about evacuation order, I guess the question for me is how do they provide that documentation for that. Because for example, let's say at some point above a certain area was under evacuation order and then that was lifted but the area was not affected by the fire directly. So they were in evacuation order and I guess my question, even if their home was not available to return to, how do they provide that documentation? What is that documentation? I think they only have the victim of the fire or the evacuation order only has to provide their address. And then it is up to the landlord to figure out whether that address, I guess you can work with the tenant, whether that address was subject to an evacuation order or an evacuation warning. You should be able to go to the maps of the fire department and figure that out. And even if it's something that was formerly an evacuation order or a evacuation warning, you should be able to still go to the maps. You just have to go to the maps that are on the internet that were on the internet, kind of the cash aid sort of thing. Okay, so it's an evacuation order and you're unable to return to your home and they would do that by looking at the map. That's my assumption. Okay. And the landlord would provide that, would provide documentation of the address to the city and we would verify that also. On the map does it say whether or not the homes were affected? There are damage maps now available online where you can actually look up individual addresses and it will tell you if the home is what the degree of damage is. If it's something that hasn't been documented yet, we would work with the landlord and the tenant to get, try to get to the bottom of that and get that information. At least currently, even those homes that may not have been damaged, although there might be smoke damage who knows. There's still an evacuation order in place currently. At some point that'll be get lifted, and then we'll have to work with them. Right. I'm thinking of more of the instance of it's not it was an evacuation order but it wasn't really affected it was out of it you know one of the outside areas so if that's no longer an effect but it was clearly an evacuation order is that also make the the person eligible for the short term rental? We as it's currently written there's a distinction between evacuation warning and evacuation order. So subsection A says the renter lives in an area that is currently under an evacuation order or warning and then B only says the renter lives in an area that was previously under an evacuation order and is unable to return home. So if there were in a warning area, they were in a warning area but they are no longer in a warning area, they would not be eligible as this is currently drafted. Okay. And then with regard to, if there's any abuse of this, is there a way for people to report? Do we have a hotline number where people could report anonymously? I'm really just thinking of the situations where there could be bad actors. So because I think this is great, I'm just trying to protect the other side. Yes, our code enforcement division would handle that. So we would treat it the same as any other Like the Airbnb violations that we see now we would treat it in the same manner and would we want to have that Number just reinforce when you put like it with the advertising or something so people know that if if they're aware that this is Being abused they're able to know where to to call I think they can report everything through AskBH. But I think we can put it in the press release. I'm looking at Keith says yes. We can do that. And then with regard to the 90 day extension, I think that that may make sense to agenda is it in the sense that others that it's impacting. So I don't have an issue with that. With regard to the TOT being waived for the hotel, I guess the same question would be, you know, how do they verify which people are staying as victims and or or not in terms of waiving the TOT. But I'm not opposed to that. It's more about how do you- I'll put it over there. So what we're gonna do, questions right now, then we're gonna go back to comments. Since this was an urgency item, I think that every question should be asked, and then everybody will have the benefit of hearing what questions the other members have. Okay. Well, those are my only other comments. Okay, continuing with Council Member Corridor. Thank you. So the only question I have is the gentleman from the peninsula and I sorry I didn't catch your name. Mr. Tenor mentioned the issue and Council Member Wells just also raised it about whether we should weigh the TOT for people Displaced as real the fires were staying at the hotels as opposed to an Airbnb And the question for staff is my reading of the draft ordinances we have it given the amorphous Definition the code of multifamily dwelling, is that the draft would cover that instance where people staying at a hotel who can prove under section 14 they've been displaced by the fires would not have to pay the TOT. I doubt that the definition of multifamily dwelling in the zoning code would incorporate a hotel under that definition. I would, I would need to double check that, but I imagine that hotels define separately. I think that we looked at this a little bit. I think it's arguable, but I think we can certainly, if that is the direction the council wants to go, I think we get certainly in section 11. Incorporate the fact that the TOT will be waived for hotels as well as multi-family. All right, so if we decide to go that route, we should clarify it, clarify the draft ordinance. Or if we decide to go the other way, we should clarify the draft ordinance. Right, okay would say go the other way, we should clarify the draft ordinance. Right, okay, that's my only question. Thank you. Thank you and council member Mirish. So we have an anti-gouging provision that's 160%. I mean, Larry, you mentioned that comes from the government somehow. Would we be allowed to reduce that to some other level? 160% seems pretty gougy to me. I don't know. I don't know. And if you actually went to the website, I don't know how they came up with their numbers. This is the federal department of housing and marine development. The numbers seemed rather low to me, just knowing what the prices are around Beverly Hills, even absent the fires. I mean, just knowing what the market is right now. So I don't know why they had 160% of those numbers. I don't know what the origin of that was, but it seems to be more in keeping with what the market is, at least in these it codes. But that is the state definition. But would we be free to adopt our own figure? You could. Yes, absolutely. You are legally free to adopt your own. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, and vice mayor Nazariah, please. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you for the report. I think this is very timely. When we are doing our verification, you know, time is a vessels, it seems like an awfully big task for our staff to have to undertake. What is the plan for that? Do we have a specific person that's going to be in charge of that? Or how is that going to work? Yes, we have a couple of staff people in our code enforcement section that will be assigned to screen those as they come in. It depends on the volume. I mean, if we get, if we start getting dozens of these a day coming in, which I don't expect the volume will be that high, but I think we'll be able to keep up with it. And hopefully, as the city attorney said, the landlords will hopefully do a little bit of verification up front to confirm that they're actually renting to a qualified person before submitting to us. But with the driver's license utility bill, what statement, and we will also be instructing the landlords to redact any personally identifying information from those documents other than a name and address. What is the current amount that is the, what is the TOT right now for rentals? 14%? I don't know about the 14%. 14% the same as for any hotel in the city. We ask for hotel, I ask for, for rentals. So it's 14%. And just to distinguish, some hotels pay 14% and others pay. We do have some hotels that, so they all pay 14%. We do have some hotels that pay an additional municipal surcharge. It is not, it's not TOT per se, but it does typically get passed on to guests at the hotel. But 14% is our tax rate. And for the short term rental or for rentals, it was said that we, people pay TOT. Is that correct? For normal short term rentals? Yes, they are people pay TOT, is that correct? For normal short-term rentals, yes, they are subject to TOT. Not hotels, but not for hotels. For example, for, I'm trying to get there. So under the municipal code, any stay that is less than 30 days is subject to our TOT, whether it be in a hotel or in a residential building. I know that Michael addressed in his presentation, one of the goals was to limit additional costs on people that had been affected. I will also say we gave some consideration to trying to remove administrative barriers that might prevent somebody from wanting to open up their ADU or something like that. Somebody who's never paid TOT before, that's a whole extra layer of regulatory process for them to file, to keep track of, and do the paperwork. And so we wanted to eliminate that. So that was another factor that was at play. And what percentage of our TOT right now is coming, would you say is coming from hotels, from hotel guests who are impacted by the fires? Perhaps would you be able to speak to that? I just want to clarify that if we were to lift this what type of impact it would have on our overall budget before we move forward one way or the other. Not that I'm a for it or against it. I just want to learn more information. Yes, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I would say I cannot give you an exact figure, but I can give you. It is almost immaterial, the amount of TOT we generate from short-term rental versus the hotels. It's practically all from the hotels. So saying that we would not charge the TOT from the hotels would be a significant impact on our budget? I believe it would only apply to those rooms where the individuals are impacted. Not knowing how many people that could be, it could be more significant. It would be more significant in a hotel, but I'm speaking more of the residential short terms. There's very little, not much, TOT generated from that. Most of all of our TOT primarily comes from the hotels to the extent a fair number of rooms were to go to such individuals that would qualify, it could have an effect on, it would have an effect on our overall TOT. It would have an effect on our TOT. It's hard to articulate that into dollars without knowing more. Right, okay. All right, thank you for that, Michael. So we're putting this system in place with the upmost, sorry, different Michael. With the best intentions, if there were to be abuse, you mentioned that there would be enforcement, what are the consequences? We would treat it as any municipal code violation. So voluntary compliance is always our first step. And then we can elevate that to administrative citations. And if there are repeat violations, we can send it to our city prosecutor for more significant legal action. Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Vice Mayor. Question for either Michael Forbes or for Larry. How do we handle a person's home that has smoke damage that was in a possible evacuation or a warning area but is now uninhabitable because the smoke damage is still there and has to be remedied. I think we would ask them for some verification of that be it a photo or a written statement if they weren't able to provide photos. Something to demonstrate that. And Mr. Mayor, I'll just jump in also. I think, you know, as we've tracked the fires and the different evacuation, both the mandatory evacuations and the warning zones that were created, somebody that was in a warning zone, they are generally a fairly significant distance from the actual fires. And I, well, I won't say it's not, I won't say it's impossible, but I cannot imagine a scenario that somebody's home in a warning zone, voluntary warning zone would have been affected by smoke damage due to the distance from the fires. That's what I was going to say as well. Okay, so if they were in the evacuation area and they evacuated and they're now able to come back because it's no longer in the evacuation area, but there's still smoke damage and they have some sort of documentation, you know, either from Surve pro or something like that that they're remedying it, would they be covered under this ordinance? Yes. Okay, that was my question. We'll go around now if we can for comments from members of council. And I caught four different items that appears that we need to address. One of them was Mr. Tenor's comment regarding a minimum of seven days if we want to consider that. The second one was an extension not by the city manager, but rather by council. The third being TOT as applicable to a hotel stay. And the fourth one was whether 160% pursuant to state law or state ordinance is something we want to adopt. So I think we need to touch on all of those in addition to whether or not we would want to pass this ordinance. So with that I'll start with council member Wells. Thank you. I have one other question first and that is, is there a possibility that on the form that they complete that they could indicate whether or not they have children that are going to be attending the Beverly Hills Unified School District? Is that possible? Certainly. The list of required information says any other information deemed necessary by the city manager so we could certainly add that. It would be great because it gives the school a heads up with regards to those students because they're also trying to manage what the increase in enrollment will be because of the fires and be it short term or not. And as well, if it's short terms, they'll also have some sense of being able to follow up down the road. If they are still short term or if they're now become permanent residents or if they've now moved out of the district. So it'll help them manage that. Sure. Yes, we can do that. If we can, and if there's a way to provide a report to them. Certainly. As you collect that information, I think they'd appreciate that. And then for the fourth item, the 160%. Can you review that for me again just so I am understanding what the question is for us? I think the Councilmember Mirish was saying that 160% seems like a lot given that there is this number that the federal government has said is the average, I guess, rental price. And as I said, the rental prices are done by zip code. And then there's a different rental price for one bedroom, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, I think goes up to four bedrooms. And he was wondering if we could do something less than 160% because 160% seemed rather high to him. I mentioned that 160% is what the state provides in their price gouging ordinance. And also having looked at the different prices for one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, four bedroom, they seem to be a little bit below what I perceive, not that I've done any scientific study of what the market value is, but they seem to be a little bit under what the market value would be. That said, that's an aside, I suppose. But yes, can we make it something less? And yes, we can make it something less. If the council is interested in what those specific numbers are, I have a slide up now that shows what the current HUD numbers are. So as Mr. Wiener said, it's done by zip code and then it's broken out by number of bedrooms. If BHTV could bring my slide up, please. Thank you. So that the top table is what HUD's current numbers are for 2025 for our zip codes. And then broken down by number of bedrooms. The bottom table are those numbers multiplied at 160%. So the bottom table is what people would, that would be the maximum that people would be paying. And again, these numbers apply to only to units that have not been previously rented. So if the unit has been previously rented, it would be restricted by the 10% limitation. Okay. So 160 is, yeah, 4,000 for studios. Okay. So for the different items, I would take for number one, the minimum of seven days for the short-term rentals, I would agree with that, given that we know that we have occupancy available at the different hotels. I'm okay with that. For number two, the 90 days, as I said earlier, I think we should agenda is that, so that the public has an opportunity to comment on that. It also gives us an opportunity to hear, not just from the hotels, but from others, and there may be some changes in amendments we may want to make to it, given once we know that how it's going. Number three, the TT for the hotel, the victims that are saying at the hotels, I'm okay with that as well. And then for number four, I'm willing to look at this down the road, but right now I'm comfortable with where this number is given that the 10% increase is that for the rentals, this is really for units that have not been rented before. So, can I just ask a question? You said minimum of seven days is okay because we, the hotels, we have hotels who could, so if the ordinances are not to apply to stays of less than seven days, and we want to give the hotels the break on the transient occupancy tax, would hotels not get the break on the transient occupancy tax unless the person was staying there more than seven days? No, I would imagine if someone sees at the hotel one day they'd have the break on the TOT. Why then? Why? Why? I mean, if they're saying they're because they are displaced and perhaps they're in the process of finding more permanent or more long-term temporary housing, but they don't have housing and they need a place to stay for one or two days. So why couldn't they then stay at these other places? We're saying they can't stay at these other places. You're basically staying in the half of the stay at hotels. If that's the case, then you don't need, I think you have one or the other. You pick this. Why the minimum is that what you're asking? Yeah. with the minimum. But the point is is that if you're saying there's a minimum of seven days, then they have to stay in a hotel if it's under seven. And if you're going to say there's no minimum, then you could, I think, make the argument you're treating both equally. You lost me there. Well, I think the hotels are saying it should be seven days, because otherwise the hotels can take care of them. And if that's the case, then the hotels have favorable treatment to the short-term rentals. On the other hand, the hotels are saying that they shouldn't have to pay TOT for these customers who are displaced so that they can be on an equal footing with the people. So I think if you want to use the equity argument, you either have to say don't have a seven day minimum or if you do, then for those seven days since it's a short term stay, then they would have to pay the two. Or the other way you could say is if they say at a hotel more than seven days, you could wave them to TOT. Right. Yeah. One to seven, they'd have to pay, but after seven, it's waved. Yeah. Um, but just why, just to why understand what John's saying, if I, if I, if they stay under seven, they pay the TOT? Yeah, so if we're going to make a rule now that says that the short-term rentals have to be at least seven days, then in that situation, up to seven days they would pay TOT. If we don't have that minimum, then we're waving it for both, I think. I guess the argument was that there should be a sort of equity between hotels and short-term rentals. And if that's the case, they should either both be, you know, the short-term should not have a seven-day minimum. But if you do impose it on them, then people basically who need a place for less than seven days have to go to a hotel. And in that case, they should. Right. I'm going to rethink what I was saying, because I'm thinking about this actually. Like if you have a larger family or depending on the different circumstances and the cost, it may be more cost effective for families if they can, if they have a short term rental that say three days even that's in a home or is in a apartment versus in the hotel where they may not be as comfortable or accommodated. So I don't think I want to restrict families from that. So I actually wouldn't want to put the minimum of seven days. I think we should have as much flexibility for the people that are victims of the fire so that they say they have a dog or two dogs or whatever the different circumstances are. I think we should allow them to figure out what's best for them in that way and so in that regard then I would just also offer the TOT to the hotels. Okay thank you council member Korman. Thank you. First I want to thank councilman Ramirez for suggesting we deal with this on an urgency basis. A number of us were talking about it, I know, behind the scenes. But it was a good idea not to have to wait till our January 28 meeting, so I want to thank you for that. I think this is a great idea. I think it's something we definitely should support. With respect to whether the TOT waivers should apply to hotel rooms as well as Airbnb's. I do think it should. The idea is to give people who have been harmed by the fires and ability to come and stay in our city and to the extent that we can weigh the TOT taxes for them. I think we should, whether it's hotels or Airbnb's. I think that's the right thing to do. So I would amend section 7, section 11 to say transit occupancy taxis, the spender for short term rental units and hotel rooms subject to the provisions of this ordinance. With respect to the minimum of seven days, I would not impose a seven day minimum requirement. I think that, you know, if people are out of their homes because of the fires for two days or four days or seven days, it doesn't matter, they're out of their homes for the fires, and we're trying to give them a help, some help. So I would not impose a seven day minimum. With respect to the 90 day extension, if the council wants it to come back to us, set of the city manager, it's fine with me, I can go either way. And finally, with respect to the requirement for units that have not been previously rented, that they can only charge 160% of the HUD figures. The HUD figures are fairly low. I don't know. I mean, they're not obviously, they're not what we would consider be affordable housing low, but they are probably below market from what I know about the market. But the most important thing I think is to recognize that these, we're talking about units that have not previously been rented and to impose a disincentive to people, not to rent them, I think is not the point. We want to incentivize people. So I see no problem with going with the penal code provision, which is the 160% of the HUD figures, and to get people to offer their units on the market. And if people find that to be too high, they simply won't rent them, and that's I think the way it should go. But I think if we reduce the amount they can charge, we're likely going to get people to say, well, okay, I have my ADU, but I don't really want to rent it for so little money. Maybe they won't, maybe they'll say the humanitarian thing to do is to rent it no matter what. But nonetheless, I don't think the HUD numbers are actually at market. So if the penal code allows 160% of the HUD numbers, I think that's the number we can live with here. Thank you. Hey, Vice. I'm sorry. Council member Merch. Thank you. So I'll support, you know, the, as proposed, no seven-day minimum. I will also support the waiver for victims at hotels as well. I do think 160. You know, I'm hoping that people who are deciding to rent out their homes or if they have a spare unit or something or doing so, not to make it killing, but I hope they're doing so to help the community. To me, 160%, seems to be the definition of gouging. I mean, I think if you're going to do 10% or whatever, I'm not supportive of that, but I'm not going to vote against the ordinance because I think we need to have something there, but I think it's ethically the wrong thing to do. I just I think it is gouging and aside from that I can also sorry. Aside from that aside from that like Craig I can live either way I can come to the council that's fine with me or go to the city manager I think we'll have a sense maybe it is better if it comes to the council because we'll see if there are actually any people who took advantage of this and But the thing is whatever we do if we pass this we should send out E-blasts and that sort of thing, letting community members know that you're allowed to, that you won't be charged business tax, that you're not going to be charged TOT, we need to do some PR to let people know that if you're willing to help and you want to help, you can and hear how the city is going to help you. Thank you. Okay, now Vice Mayor Desari. Yes, thank you very much. So I am in favor of this ordinance. I think that it's very timely and it's important for our community to have a space where we could help our neighbors in need. I agree for this to come back to council after 90 days to make any amendments that are necessary or to be able to make any tweaks to either assist or change some of the policies that we have in place with regard to this. I am fine with the 160% because after I looked at the numbers, it looks like it wouldn't impact the numbers that are part of our city, especially with regard to the state ordinance. I do think that if somebody's going to be opening new rentals during this time, it is to help the community. And so hopefully that's the way we'll move through. Now, with regard to the TOT, I am so grateful to all of our hotels for all the assistance that they've given us. I feel very uncomfortable making this decision in an emergency manner without having any numbers or any figures in place, especially as we're experiencing a budget deficit, I'm sorry. We need to kind of know what we're getting into before we agree to it just blindly. I understand doing the the TOT for the short term rentals, but a lot of these they are hotels, which brings me to my next point. I also am, I want to make sure that our staff really is vigilant so that these measures that we're putting into place are not abused and they're utilized by the people who genuinely need them and we're able to provide the resources for the community members. So I trust that staff will take this big undertaking on and be prepared to validate this information. It's not that I'm not in favor of the hotel portion of the TOT. I just would like to have some more information before we agree to it. So perhaps we could bring that portion of it back at our next meeting or in a little bit. I don't think that that would put too much of a strain if somebody is staying at one of our top hotels in the community. I don't foresee the percentage of tax making that much of an impact. But again, I don't want to make a decision half hazardly or without proper numbers in place. And so if there's a recommendation from our city manager as to how we could possibly revisit that portion of it, I'm open to that. So that is entirely up to the council. We're happy to bring that portion back. I would encourage us to move forward with the other aspects. Obviously tonight, the Assistant City Manager and I verified just to give you some order of magnitude, just some order of magnitude. Let's say we had a hundred rooms being rented by families that were displaced in our hotels for a month for 30 days at a nightly rate of $600 per night. Just picking numbers out of the sky. That would be approximately $250,000 for that month of TOT. Do you want me to do that again? Okay, so 100 rooms, we're just picking round numbers. Let's say 100 rooms were rented by displaced families for 30 days. The whole 30 days. At an average nightly rate of $600 a night That would be about $250,000 in TOT that would be waived For the hotels just to give you an idea That's for how many nights you said? It would be a hunt let's say a hundred rooms For an entire month. So if I'm 100 families come in they rent a hundred rooms for an entire month. So if 100 families come in, they rent 100 rooms and they stay in those rooms for a month. So if it were to be 60 days and we're looking at 90 days, if it were to be 90 days, if we took those same numbers, it would be $750,000. No, because you can't charge TOT numbers it would be $750,000. No, because you can't charge TOT if someone's going to be there longer than 30 days. So 30 days is actually the maximum. So that's the maximum that someone could be in the hotel. Now conceivably if you wanted to hypothesize that one family was in there for 30 days they moved out and another family moved in for for 30 days, they moved out and another family moved in for 30 days, and then they moved out and another family moved in for 30 days. You could get 90 days, but it would have to be that sort of hypothetical. If a family goes in and stays more than 31 days, they don't pay any TOT. I just feel that if they do have the occupancy, these are people who can afford to stay in a hotel for $650 a night. And I'll just, I tried to use rough averages. I came up with $600 a night. I will note the peninsula is currently, this as far as I can tell online, the cheapest room is about $1,000 a night at the moment. Right. I, I, I mean, I think that with where we are in our city revenue right now and the impact that we have. Yes. Did you want to share some? Council indulge me. That's a rack rate and not what we're charging fire victims. Also, how many fire victims do you have staying in your hotel right now? I was there this afternoon and offer told me that there were more than two dozen families. And to Council Member Wells Point, there's about a hundred dogs and cats, which we've allowed people to bring in as well as their cars. So we're doing everything we can to accommodate them. And just, I know, Verbige's important, Council Member Mears, the hotel doesn't pay the TOT. It simply collects it from the guests and passes it through to the city. And let me just jump in here for some time. Yeah, that's an important point. I mean, you're talking about, it's the fire victims who are paying the TOT taxes ultimately, not the hotels. Correct. And the, our proposal doesn't change a guest that's staying with us for leisure or business purposes. They will continue to pay the TOT. The other thing I think it's important to recognize is sure a lot of these people are going to have their hotel tabs picked up by insurance companies. But these are also people who otherwise would not be staying at our hotels. They would be staying at their own homes. So in a sense, if we are insisting, they pay the TOT taxes, we are indirectly profiteering in some ways from the fires which I think is not the right way to approach this problem. So I do think that waving the TOTs for the hotel stays for these people is the right thing to do, it's the ethical thing to do. And in my mind, it doesn't matter how much money we're talking about. Because these are people who have been displaced, they're in pain, and I think they should not have to worry about the TOT taxes. And I want to echo the city attorney's point, which is the current code says, if a guest stays with us for more than 30 days, they don't pay the TOT. In fact, they can get a refund of the TOT. So, and this would only apply for the, I'm assuming the 90 days that this emergency ordinances in place and then it goes back just to the regular rules. So, I'm bad with numbers, but I don't think it would be a meaningful impact to the city's overall budget in light of how much assistance it might provide to somebody that just lost their home. And just today we were at a roundtable which I'll talk more about later. You could have a seat, sir. Thank you. I just have one more point. I apologize. All right, it's not a conversation. I'll leave it to the mayor to decide whether he wants you to speak. Mr. Senator, it's not supposed to be interactive conversation. If there's a question, of course, any of the council members can ask and I believe that's what council member, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Nazari and did do. So, Vice Mayor, could you continue? Yes, thank you. So that was very helpful. Today we were at a round table with the assembly members, and one item that was brought up with regard to price gouging and I want to make it very clear is that it is a federal and civil Offense and so we want to make that very clear to anyone in who is trying to take advantage of any fire victims That's the last thing that we would want to do. All right, those are my questions for now. I mean, those are my comments. So. So in terms of the waiver of the TOT for the hotels, I'm not sure you gave the final opinion as to where you were at. It's really difficult to evaluate right now just because we don't know exactly the impact that it would have. The numbers that we're being given are significantly higher and the numbers that are being given from Mr. Tenor are quite different. And it's difficult for me to make an informed decision without all of the knowledge. I'd be curious to hear, you know, I guess my colleagues have spoken and I'll be in favor of it, but I think that it is something that we should look at or perhaps table just that portion of it until we have some more information being that I mean, I know we heard from one hotelier, but did we hear from any other hotels regarding this topic? I'm not aware of any other correspondence or emails, that sort of thing from the other hotels. Yeah, and I don't know, Mayor, I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this as well. Okay, so what I'm gathering as the same with Council member Mirish was that he was probably going to vote for it, but he's not happy about 160%, but he's not gonna I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I think that's why I I'm happy with the waiver. Correct. I would absolutely want to move forward with this today. It's not something that I would want to defer. Thank you. Thank you. One question that I had that arose since we did the questions was the extension. If so, by the city manager. And I was just wondering if I could ask the city manager In terms of making a determination if it was your determination at around the 90 day mark What information would you rely upon in making that decision? Oh, I think You know having a sense of you know how many families or individuals are taking advantage of this provision, having a sense of trying to get in some sense of are their homes completely destroyed? Is it smoke damage that they're remediating how long would the stays be? I think council member Wells raised a good point about whether their children would be going to school here in Beverly Hills. Obviously, if they enroll their children, at this point in our schools, eliminating their ability to have their, you know, their short-term rental beyond 90 days would be challenging for a family that's already been displaced. So I think there would be a number of factors to consider the other thing too and I'm not certainly not advocating one way or the other with the City Council. If I'm not comfortable with making the decision, I of course would bring it back to City Council. Having said that whatever, you know, Council wants to proactively say it should come back in 90 days. I'm fine with that as well. Okay, thank you. Okay, let me go through the four items. The minimum of seven days. I'm not really in favor of that. I think that what we're trying to do is get this urgency ordinance out there as quickly as we can so people can take advantage of using the facilities within our community. So, you know, I understand the rationale for it in that it possibly could take business or refuge away from the hotels, but I don't think that's a good enough reason right now. I think we need to do this as quickly as possible. I don't have any problem with the city manager making that decision. Primarily for the reasons that we just heard. That is my experience has always been that if the city manager thinks it's a close call and and and there have been close calls, she's going to defer and put it on the calendar or ask the mayor to put it on the calendar. So I don't have a problem with the city manager making making the determination at the time, because I have full confidence in the city manager. The TOT as applicable to the hotels. I'm in agreement with council member Korman on that. To not allow that and it's just unconscionable to me. I think that it's appropriate. I think that there's enough safeguards. It has to be within the rules. I think it's upsection 15. There are rules that are set forth and I don't have a problem with that at all. And the 160 percent, you know, I think we have strayed in the past from established guidance from other governmental entities. And I think that we shouldn't do that. I think that we need to be uniform. So I would be okay with 160%. I do agree. Well, first of all, that's a maximum. And I think that our community is better than that. I don't think our community would necessarily go for the maximum and I just think that we should stay in line with what other jurisdictions are doing and here we have a state jurisdiction, the state doing it. So and obviously I'm in favor of this and hopefully we have four out of five that will agree. I think we may even have five out of five. So we will, I will now entertain a motion. I'll make the motion. All right. I move that the full reading of the urgency ordining be waived and that the urgency ordnance entitled an ordinance of the city of Beverly Hills to suspend short term rental restrictions to address the immediate needs for short term housing as a result of the Los Angeles County fires and wind storm events of January 2025 and declaring the urgency thereof and finding the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as amended be adopted. Second. Before we have a second, I just want to make sure that the city attorney or Mr. Forbes has all the numbers as to the four items. So as I understood it, there are two items that had support of the majority of the council. One was to substitute the city council for the city manager in section 3 and the other was in section 11 to Say that the transient occupancy tax is suspended for short term rental units and hotels. Subject to provisions of this ordinance. Yes. And I second it. Yes. So just so I'm unclear. I'm clear. I'm up there. We have a second. I'm so is it so the motion is is for the ordinance where it comes back to us automatically in 90 days or the city or the city manager has the discretion. Comes back to us. Yeah. That's how I understood it, but if that's wrong. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's what's going on. Comes back to us. Okay. And if I may mayor Friedman and council members, I think Mr. Forbes was looking at the timeline. And so if it is to come back to the city council, I think we'd actually recommend a hundred days because that would bring us to the April 22nd meeting for city council. I'm okay changing my stance on that in an agreement with the mayor, if that would be easier, so that the city manager has the ability to make that decision. I was willing to do that too. I'm hearing council member Corman as well and so is the mayor. So I guess that's that portion of it perhaps can be at the discretion of would you like me to make the motion again? So let me repeat just so I understand. So section three would remain the same. Correct. All right. And other than that, I don't think you need to make the motion again. If that's your motion, maybe we can see if that would be seconded. I seconded it and I'll keep my second. Okay. Then that's the motion and the second with the amendments, again, as I, that are on your redlined version, plus the changes to section 11. Yes. Section 11 is adding the hotel. Correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, if we could have the clerk call the roll. Council member, do you have a roll call? What the hotel's added, yes. Okay, roll call is council member Wells? Yes. Council member Corman. Yes. Council member Mirish. Yes, vice mayor Nazarian. Yes, and mayor Friedman. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move on to item number C2. An ordinance of the city of Beverly Hills to extend the delinquency date for payment of the 2025 business tax for personal services businesses under classification of section 3-1-219 of the Beverly Hills municipal code through March 31st, 2025 declaring the urgency thereof. And as I read that is March 31st, a Sunday and does that have a an impact on what we're doing? Monday. Monday. I believe it's a Monday. But is it a holiday? The reason I say that is because I got my state bar notice and they say that the the reason I say that is because I got my state bar noticed and they say that the do's which are generally do on the 30th are now due on the first because of a Sunday and then a holiday. I believe it sees her shop as day, but that's not considered. County some county offices are closed on. Yes, some cities observe it as well, but Beverly Hills City Hall is open. It's just a question and if it's not a concern, we can raise it under questions. If we could have a report please. And my report, good afternoon, honorable Mayor City Council members, Jeff Muir, Director of Finance. I did not follow in Michael's footsteps because I feel this is a pretty simple matter before you. I do not have a PowerPoint. This is very simply another measure to assist a portion of our business community that has expressed some concerns particularly those in the personal, what's considered the personal services, things like beauty, salons, hair, nail, massage, those types of personal services where they're a portion of their clientele has been affected by these fires. And this would simply extend the date, effectively the due date for them to file their business tax renewal without penalty from January 31st to March 31st. And that ends my report. And Jeff, if I can just ask one other question, when you say you gave some examples, are those is the ordinance limited to those types of examples or is it all personal services or or only certain classifications? It's defined to with in classification a. Okay, with that, is there anyone in chambers who would like to be heard on this matter? We do not have any public comment in any form for this item. Okay, and are there any, let's do it questions again first are there any city council questions of staff. I do not have any questions thank you. I have no thanks no no no no for me either and I do still I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. I'm not sure if I can answer the question. which people could take advantage of this delay and those who might not be able to. Classification A includes, I forget the exact description. I don't have the code in front of me. It's defined as personal services, and there is another component. Do you mean things that other than personal services? Yeah, if corporate headquarters are all- Corporate headquarters and personal services is, sorry, is the definition of classification A, we're speaking to the personal services businesses. I do not have an exhaustive list. The director of finance does have the authority to determine the proper classification for businesses. We have that information in our system. It is the likes of salons, massage technicians, nails, pet grooming businesses such as that that provide personal type services to clients. Director Mayor, perhaps you could also tell us what it would not include. So would this include retail? Would it include car sales? That sort of thing, tell us what it would not include car sales? That sort of thing to us what it would know. It does not include retail car sales or rental. Any other classification is not included. The federal professional service like legal or accounting services. It would not include that. That's a different classification. So you said corporate headquarters. What does that mean? That is. Corporate headquarters is is a. Corporate headquarters located in the city. It is it will not apply to those businesses. It will only apply. So classification a includes both corporate headquarters and personal services as it's currently defined. We're excluding corporate headquarters. That's the clarification that I needed. Because when you said it, you said both. It includes both. So I got confused. All right, good thing. Mayor, if I could just add to Keith Sterling, Deputy City Manager. During the pandemic, we, in lot of our promotion of the restrictions related to business operation, personal services was part of that. I recall that and I know that we have contacts and lists and categories in our office and we can work with finance to make sure that the proper businesses are notified. Okay, and Jeff, just one clarification. If a person looked at their tax notice or business tax notice, would it indicate on that that they are classification a? Yes. And those would also say on those corporate headquarters a, but we're going to somehow make sure that they know that they even though they are a class a they have not they are not encompassed in this delay correct correct I think I just made a simple item more complicated than I apologize for that starting with councilmember Wells, any comments? No other than the fact that I appreciate that you bring this to this right away, bring this to us right away. I think we know and we'll see that the impact of the fires are going to affect many people and it's going to have a domino effect in many ways. And I think this is great for us to do this right now, and we should also, you know, as well keep our eyes open for other areas in the future that may need to be addressed. But this is really wonderful. Thank you. And I support it. And Council Member Corby. Thanks. Now I support to think thing that's good idea. I would add, I'd like to make one proposed change to section one of the ordinance. The last sentence reads, the ordinance must be adopted and must become effective immediately in order to adequately respond to the continuing mental and emotional burden imposed on personal service businesses. I would put in right after that and their owners created by widespread destruction only because a business entity itself may not have mental or emotional burdens, but the owners certainly do. So I just wanted to clarify that. That was the only addition I would make other than that obviously I fully support this. If I can go back to council member Wells, do you accept that modification? Yes, I do. Thank you. And I'm also okay with that. I'm supportive. Thank you for bringing this up. And vice mayor Nizere. Yes. And I am also supportive. Make a motion. I move that the full reading of the urgency ordinance be waived and that the urgency ordinance entitled the ordinance of the city of Beverly Hills to extend the delinquency date for payment of the 2025 business tax for personal services services businesses under the classification A of section 3-1-219 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code through March 31st, 2025, and declaring the urgency thereof be adopted. I'll second. Before we do that, I think we need to have an as amended. As amended. I'll second. I'll second. Okay, we have the clerk. You know, before I do that, who am I? Did we get an as amended on on on our first or urgency ordinance? Larry, do you remember us? Yes, we did. Okay, thank you. If we could have a clerk call the roll, please. Council member Wells. Yes, council member Corhaman. Yes, Council member Corman. Yes. Council member Mirish. Yes. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes. And Mayor Friedman. Yes. And before we adjourn, I want to turn it over to our city manager. Thank you, Mayor. In consultation with you, we felt it would be helpful for the fire chief to give a brief, very brief update on the fires and our recovery efforts. Additionally, I've asked Mr. Sterling to give a very brief couple of reminders to the community on ways in which we can communicate with them so with that chief Barton. Thank you. Another mic. There you go. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just a quick update on what the city's done and a little update on the fires. So going back to when the fire started last Tuesday, so as it started we sent resources over to assist the palisades on that fire. They're still over there assisting right now. The other things that the fire department did is we started patrolling the area. We started extra staffing, we started monitoring the weather, and we also sent people out to look at the construction sites to make sure that any hot work or anything else was stopped immediately. And we're still doing that even now today to make sure everything is being looked at. This is definitely a team effort, not just the fire department, the police department, but public works. They had crews out clearing the streets. They were top, the water tanks were topped off, so we had enough water to fight any fires if it happened. And make sure all the generators were up and running. PD was out doing patrols. We had the real time watch center looking into the brush areas and they're still doing that today to ensure that the area is covered. And PD also sent officers to assist with the evacuations and security in the early time of that event. The EOC was staffed up for coordination. Community service has opened up a hot line and we're prepared to open up shelters if they were needed. The PIO's office got messaging out, throughout the entire event and did an outstanding job. In fact, the local news when alert went out, the local news actually relied on Beverly Hills getting that message out first before anybody else did. So they did an outstanding job. And I really want to thank the community for all the support during this event, not only to the fire department, the police department, but all city staff. And I really want to thank the council for the support that they've given to the entire community and all the staff. We couldn't do what we're doing now without the support of the council. So thank you for that very much we'll give a larger report in an upcoming meeting so thank you. You're doing mayor and council key to the deputy city manager as chief Martin mentioned the community engagement throughout this process has been really important and really strong and I guess if there's any encouraging moment from this is that maybe folks that weren't following us and our communication as much as they were now are and are learning about the methods and how we can reach folks. So just a reminder, Beverly Hills dot org slash emergency, Beverly Hills dot org slash emergency gives you all the options to make sure you're getting our communications through all the channels that we can reach you. One other thing I want to remind, I said this the other night, just want to remind the community that even if you don't opt into certain communications through our website, for example, or follow us on social media or read the newspaper, we will reach you through what's called wireless emergency alert system. So if we need to contact this entire community, we will do it through a wireless emergency alert, which will come to you on your cell phone regardless if you opt in or not for our communication. So again, just want to thank Chief Barton, all the department heads, City Council, the mayor for working so closely with us during this emergency. And we thank you again for your support. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Sterling. That concludes our brief report, Mayor. Okay. And I believe Vice Mayor Nazarian wants to report on a meeting she had today with assembly members of her. Yes, it was. Thank you, Mayor. It was a lot of things it needs to be brief based on the rules that we. Super great. Our toll are in existence. Yes. Today we Council member Marish and I along with Chief Barton attended a round table hosted by Assembly Member Rick Chavez-Aber. There were other Assembly members there. Robert Revas, budget chair Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, supervisor Horvath, and many representatives from Santa Monica, Culver City, Los Angeles, West Hollywood. And we discussed key issues, the issue of short-term rentals came up, business tax filings as we have already addressed, relocation challenges, and ensuring the displaced individuals have adequate support. As I mentioned earlier, price gouging, a critical issue, which is both a federal and civil offense, and we want to make that clear. One issue that I wanted to bring up to everyone is the insurance and FEMA assistance. I raised the concern about individuals forfitting insurance coverage if they receive FEMA funding. I think that's really important and something that we should all be mindful of. We talked about the 180 days where federal assistance is available and how we need to tap into that as cities right now to be able to get full federal funding. And I also touched upon the environmental rebuilding efforts and the importance of preparing for this because this is going to have severe environmental impacts on all of us as a community and we discussed water system and the need for sustainable rebuilding strategies. So just we also talked about communication and what our city has done with regard to communication and what a fabulous job they've done. Councilmember Mirish brought up that we possibly need to do better at a county level to fix some of the false alarms that were sent out to various community members when they were not really being impacted. And this is going to be a long challenge. I did express our sympathy to those that were impacted from the mayor and all of my colleagues on City Council. And we express that to those that were there because this is something that is gonna take some time but we'll get through it all together. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity. Okay, and with that, unless there is objection, I will go to item number D. Okay, can't be everybody, but without objection, I would during this meeting. Thank you all for doing this and being here. I'm glad we were able to get this done on an emergency basis. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. So tell us there is a way to transcend the elves and baswitch. Tell me about the lives and risk to capture their wondrous bellies. that they too are desperate for more than faded dots beyond reach. Happy Columbia.