is May 6th, 2025. Tuesday, welcome to the special study session. It's 2 p.m. and we'll start with public comments. Any person wishing to address the city council on any matters not on the agenda may do so in writing through email, video appearance or in person at this time. And public comments will be three minutes. If there are are more than 20 people commenting then comments will be taken at the end of the meeting. There will also be a summarization of the city clerk on written public comments and then anyone wishing to speak after that will be called upon at the end of the meeting. So with that said, do we have any public comments? Yes, we have one non-agendaist public comment for a person here in the room. Yes, so Mr. Lewis Hall, welcome. Do we say honorable? Honorable. Okay, thank you Mayor Nazarian, Vice Mayor, Mayor and Council members. First of all, just a, oh there it is. I was looking. Box should be bigger. Okay. I spoke in March about speeding cars in the Southwest of Beverly Hills. I want to say thank you. Though some speeding still happens, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. We see more police presence and I've seen the police pull over cars that don't stop at the stop signs. I've talked to the crossing guards and they see a difference too. So thank you very much. I've been thinking a lot about the goal the city has for more unity. Unity is best when it's demonstrated, not just talked about. And this was demonstrated maybe a little over a month ago or so when council member Mrs. Wells stepped in on a situation where a disgruntled group wished to recall two school board members. Council member Wells seemed to have helped defuse that situation. So thank you. We have a new school superintendent, Dr. Alex Ternis. If you have a chance to listen and talk to him, I worked with him years ago when I was on the school board, and he's a deep thinker and a very capable educator. I'm sure there are ways the city can help him and for him to help the city. You can tell him that I told you to call him. So just try to call it. It would be worthwhile, I think. And finally, this is on the agenda, by the way. Don't miss the concert that Golda Zera is giving in the Beverly Hills, Beverly Cannon gardens in two weeks. A matter when she attended Beverly High and I supported independent study for allowing her. Is that for A1? What's that? Would you like to save your comments for when we get to that item? No, I'm just gonna give it. It's fine. It's very simple. But it's okay. Well. That is an item on the agenda. It is an item on the agenda. It's an agenda, so we have to take a look. Okay. Okay, I can do it. It's really short, though. Yes, please go ahead. You want me to wait? No, go ahead. I'll go ahead. Yes. Okay, I was just going to say, I met her when she attended Beverly High and I supported independent study, which gave her and a lot of other students the opportunity to advance their talents. And she has since spent eight years in Italy developing her singing voice, and is now back in Beverly Hills. Her concert is Saturday, May 24th. It's free, and that's what I saw on the agenda when I came in. So thanks for hearing me. That's it. Thank you for the public comments just to clarify that item has not been voted on yet by council. That's the next item before us. So all right. That concludes public comment. Okay. On a said. Non-agent. I said. Okay. Excellent. We're going to go to A1 please. Request from local business owner Shalom Birkman to host a Golda Zahra concert event on Saturday, May 24th, 2025. And to hang event banners around Beverly Canyon Gardens. May we have a report? Welcome, Pat. And good afternoon, Mayor. I'm going to kick this one off. I wanted to give a little context to this item. In our world, it has been a fairly fast-moving item in the bureaucratic world that we live in. Originally, the Berkmans were interested in simply renting Beverly Cannon Gardens for the concert to provide a free and open concert to the public. We have been working with them, well, we meaning Patty has been working pretty closely with them. What was very important to them was the ability to have banners on the city street poles close to Beverly Cannon Gardens to sort of, you know, promote the concert. We've been working with the Berkmans up and through yesterday and the request to Council has changed slightly. The report that you'll see in your packet indicates a request to waive permit fees totaling almost $3,000 and also the ability to hang banners. We've talked with the Berkmans and they are happy to pay the fee. They understand that by waiving the fee it could set a precedent for others in the city. And so with that, I wanted to just provide the context that the request today is only of the city. And so with that, I wanted to just provide the context that the request today is only of the ability to hang banners on the street polls that are co-sponsored with the city and have the city shield on them. Great, thank you for that clarification. Now, a report from Patty Benchord, please. Good afternoon, Mayor Nazarian, council member city staff. My name is Patty Benchord with Community Development. We are here requesting approval for Shalom Berkman, a local business owner and community member, and the city to co-sponsor the Goldazzara event in order to hang banners around Beverly Cannon Gardens. The city's banner policy requires that the city be a sponsor of an event to allow for the hanging of banners related to an event as such. The applicant requires that the city be considered a sponsor of the event for the purpose of allowing the requested banners. The proposed banner design has been pre-approved by the city's communication team, and locations of banners will not interfere with any current banner campaign. The applicant would be responsible for off-abrication, installation, and design of banner costs. If approved, Mr. Burkeman would use the city's contracted banner vendor for fabrication and installation of banners. However, fees will not impact the annual city purchase order since the applicant will pay the vendor directly. Council approvals requested regarding the proposed banner associated with the request from Shalom Burkeman and the City of Beverly Hills to co-sponsor the Goldazara event in order to hang banners around Beverly Canyon Gardens. That concludes my portion and I'm going to invite Mr. Shalom Berkman up here to say a few words about the event for his daughter. Shalom Mr. Berkman. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Great to be here. And thank you Mayor and Council Members. Just a brief thing about it. Already Lewis was so generous telling, explaining about Golda. But in addition to that, you know, she was invited to sing at the Centennial, at the Saban Theater, she was maybe 15 years old, and there's even a picture of it in the book that memorialized the event, the 100th year of City of Beverly Hills, and now she's back, and we really are excited about this event, because we think that it's such a great way to celebrate the city of Beverly Hills and the great education system. She was really inspired to become a singer here at Beverly Vista in the choir there. Yes, yes. And so we think it's a great way. It's exciting. It's a start to the beginning of summer. And, you know, we've, our whole life, have gone to all the summer concert series every year. And this idea to bring the community together, a free community event, bring all the educators in and great city staff. And maybe, maybe, dream is that it becomes an annual event, kicking off the summer every year. And it's also a great gift and a way for us to continue giving back to the city. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much. Okay. Do we have any public comment on this item? Mr. Lewis did have his comment, but he shared that. We have no other public comments at this time. All right, great. So I'm going to go to my colleagues for questions and comments. Council member Wells, please. Okay. I have one question and it's really just about the calendar currently. We have other city events that on the 24th that are happening that may be something we should consider as we look at this? Nothing is coming to mind now for the 24th. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's my only question. And comments? Okay. Well, I support this. I think it's It is tied to our schools, which is as we've always identified as one of our pillars in the city The fact that she went to study in Italy and she's back here and I think it also Reinforced that connection for us as a international city as well. I think that because the permit fees and the cost associated with having the event will be not paid for by the city, I think that helps us with regard to other proposals in the future and that the the event is free, and I think that it'll be very well supported, and people will be very thrilled to celebrate this success in finding gold is passion, and supporting that. I think that's really wonderful. I think there'll be generations of people that will be very excited about that. And then with regard to future events, I think that we're talking about a lot of different parameters around future events as we move forward. So I think that's to be determined there. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Korme. Thank you. So I actually have some questions from Mr. Berkman if he could come back up. So I can get asked him. First of all, I have not heard your daughter sing. I heard she's very good. Her concert when she was 15 was I knew about it and I heard it was heard great things about it. So I think this is a great idea to have her come back after being away for so many years and have a concert for the community. So I fully support that. I just want you to know. Thank you. So the only issue that I have is the banners. As I think was explained to you, if we put the banners up, even if you pay for them, we have to co-sponsor the event. And we have a number of people who might want their children to give free concerts in the park. Maybe not as talented as your daughter, or maybe not as accomplished as your daughter. Nonetheless, we have to be mindful that if we allow this just for any resident, we have to allow them for all residents. So can you give me an idea of your daughter's background as far as her career is concerned, which might make it seem like she's not just someone who went through the schools and is a hometown hero, but has a career in the inner chosen field. Oh, absolutely. My pleasure, my pleasure. So last year she returned to Los Angeles after eight years in Italy. And she had a couple of series of very successful events. She had a sold out concert at the Broad Stage in Santa Monica. And she's going to repeat that concert again this year in July. And she went on to perform with the Pacific Music Festival, Puccini Festival at Disney Hall. And she played the role of Liu, which is a major opera role. And she continues to rack up the event. She has four concerts coming up this summer. So she's very, very popular. It'll be a popular, well-attended event. So I guess that's it. I mean, I think based on the success of last year's concert. Are some of these events, so these are events that people actually pay to get for tickets? Absolutely. Yes, yes. Absolutely. Very good. That's why you did that. So I appreciate that. So I am supportive of the event. I'm supportive of the banners. It sounds like your daughter has a career and she's moving along and we'd love to have her come back and perform for us. And I think it's terrific. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Freeman. Thanks. I just wanted you to stay so you don't have to go back and forth. So first of all, I do want to congratulate you, your family, on the success of your daughter. I did some research and she's very, very well accepted. I suspect she takes after her mother, right? Always, of course. You don't have to hear me sing. It's a terrible scary. So having said that, similar concerns that Council Member Corman had about others following in those footsteps, and I think it's been addressed. This is not something where certainly I, as a Council Member, would just generally approve any parent's child just coming in and performing, but the level of talent your daughter has is exceptional. And I thank you and your daughter and your family for doing this. What I have, though, and this may be a patty question is what is the expectation of a love for the city's level of sponsorship? So on the banner you're going to see the shield pretty much and that for the co-sponsorship with the city. Our seal is able to be on the banner. And then in order to hang banners, you have to be a co-sponsor at the event. Okay, so other than in name being a co-sponsor, there's no other expectation of the city. Other than of course giving the permission to use the facility. Is that correct? Yes, the Berkman's are covering all fees related to use of the facility. Is that correct? Yes, the brickmins are covering all fees related to use of the space staff time that is required for set up and breakdown. So the only request today is to co-sponsor in the sense of the banners only. So I would have the city shield on it and it would be a a concert that's free and open to the public. It wouldn't be a ticketed event. It would be open to the community. Okay, so I think, you know, that's fine. I'm not taking away from any banner campaign. So there's a small gap and it just will happen to work out. Millkin banners are being removed. These are going to be put up if approved. And then when these come down, concourse will go up. Okay. And I assume that we've had outreach to the local businesses when I mean as the Mayborn and the other facilities in the park area. Let them know of the concert. And has there been outreach in terms of checking that they didn't have anything going on that this might interfere with? No, nothing that's overlapping on the calendar. Okay, and because normally we would have letters of support from those local businesses, I see that there's none in our packet, but we have made those that outreach already. They didn't do letters of support now because they're gonna be paying for everything. So we usually ask for letters of support as there's gonna be some sort of street closure or amplified down later in the evening. This will be all be done by 10 p.m. which is standard with our amplified down policy. And they're gonna pay fee. There's no street closures, no sidewalk closures, no parking meters, nothing like that. Okay, well, I guess my concern would be that if there were some large event going on at the neighboring hotel that we don't know about because it would be a private event that it would have been or should be a matter of policy that we check with them and make sure that they don't have a concern. Oh, so yeah, I work with the Mayborn on a monthly basis. We have a few meetings a month to meet with them to make sure that they know of our events. We know of their events. So for instance, if they had a wedding on the terrace, we wouldn't want any amplification on the grounds. So I work very closely with them. I've already notified them of this event along with the three restaurants that are on the other side. Okay, good, good. Again, congratulations, look forward to the event. Thank you. Thank you, nice mayor, Mayor. Thank you, and I'm completely supportive. Actually, I think it could be a precedent and it it should be. If anyone has, if there are Beverly Hills residents who go on to be international opera stars, then we should absolutely have concerts celebrating them in our city and all the better to offer them free for our residents. I think this is a great thing. For me, the sad thing is, it's on a date that I unfortunately won't be able to attend. I'm going to be at a previous engagement, the America Prestige Awards, where I'll be speaking, but otherwise I would have loved to have gone and I would have actually made a request. I would have liked to have. But we'll save that hopefully for next time because hopefully it will be an ongoing thing. So we heard that you spoke with the surrounding businesses so that the concert wouldn't disturb. So, for example, we know that the Mayborn, they're not having a Muslim brotherhood conference. They're not having a terrorist convention about how to hold hostages that we would disturb or anything like that. Have anything on their calendar? Okay, thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. So, a lot of the questions that I had have already been responded to. I think that our main concerns were the fee and it looks like the fees are being taken care of. So thank you for that. It's also about setting precedent in the future. So ensuring that if we do partnerships such as this in the future, I would recommend that they come through the proper channels. I know that there was a time constraint this time, but in the future, I'd like to request anybody who wants to come, we have a special events liaison committee for this reason, so that would be great. I think it's quite a gift to our community to be able to have one of our own residents who grew up in Beverly Hills, performing and being able to highlight and showcase their skills for our residents. And it's a great way to bring unity. It's a great way to celebrate our community and really showcase how wonderful Beverly Hills is. So thank you. Thank you for sharing your family with us. And're grateful that Gold is going to be performing and we look forward to the celebration and the kickoff. All right, so with that, do you have direction? Yes, thank you very much. All right, great. Thank you so much. All right, next we're going to go to item A2 to finalize the priority setting. Ad hoc committee recommendations for fiscal year 2025, 2026. And may we have a report from our city manager, Nancy Hunt coffee, welcome. Let the technology load here. Okay, well as the mayor stated, we are here to talk about the priority setting ad hoc recommendations regarding the final priorities, goals and work plan items and milestones for fiscal year, 2526. So as council is well aware, this has been a different process. We've done priority setting for years and we decided to sort of change up the process a little bit this last year. So our first step was to get through draft priorities and so back in May we established an ad hoc of then vice mayor Nazarian and council member Korman The ad hoc met and put together a sort of framework for our priority our priorities That framework was bought to the city council in August and was approved by all of you. Once the framework was approved in October and November of last year, the ad hoc's reviewed a whole bunch of draft priorities, goals and work plan items and made recommendations on those and they were subsequently brought to the City Council in December at which time the council provided direction and feedback on those priorities. There was also some interest in folding in the commission priorities into the City Council priorities having sort of a more formal process for folding those commission priorities into the larger ones. And so that process, that extensive process sort of wrapped up in December to get our draft priorities together. And at that point, our internal budget preparation process kicks off at the staff level. So the departments have lots of conversations about where they're at. They take in any direction that council has given as far as things that will need to be done in the future fiscal year. And so our friends and finance have been working away on that feverishly for the last few months. And the priorities informed that process. You'll see that when when the budget comes forward in June. And so now we are working on setting our final priorities for the 25-26 fiscal year. So last week our ad hoc met once again to review the final priorities and they made some recommendations on those. They also discussed the structure, not the commission priorities themselves, but a structure that would help communicate current draft commission priorities and then how to evaluate those. And so we had lots of good discussion around that last week. And today we are here seeking direction on the final City Council priorities for next fiscal year as well as feedback on the commission priorities which we will have which we have for you today. Once we receive that our budget adoption process will kick off in June. If there's any tweaks or changes today that may have an impact on the budget we will address those as we move through the budget process in June. So the list, we have a very long list of priorities. It was included in your packet. The list that you saw back in December included strategic priorities. They're sort of nested things. So the strategic priority is the highest level. And then underneath each priority we have multiple can have multiple goals and can have multiple work plan items. We have since that time indicated which departments would be responsible for that work plan item. is also added Milestones for almost every work plan item. You'll recall we talked about wanting to have our work plan item. Staff has also added milestones for almost every work plan item. You'll recall we talked about wanting to have our work plan items be achievable, action oriented and to measurable. So we know when we're done, we know when we've accomplished each of them. And the document in red indicates where additional funding is needed or may be needed. So you'll see things like pending City Council CIP, meaning capital improvement process or capital improvement program, BATH, meaning budget enhancement considerations. So you'll see some red in the document. So the council starts to get a sense of, are these things funded fully? Are they not funded fully? Will they need more money so that you can have more feedback and involvement in that process? Last week the ad hoc had a number of good, lots of good feedback. They asked for clarification on some of the items. They concurred with the staff recommendation on, again, structure of the commission priorities. We didn't discuss the commission priorities themselves, but on the structure of how to sort of get a more formal process in place there. They also recommended that six of the work plan items be discussed further by the city council. There was some discussion about whether the items which we'll which I'll put on the screen are they really needs are they more wants are they more wish list and so wanting to have a bit more discussion about those six items. I'll walk through those very quickly these six items that were identified as needing some more conversation. The first two that are on the screen here, the Work Plan 1.2.8. The only question on this one was surveying alternate locations for the EOC. It was not related to whether the technology needed to be upgraded. I think there was concurrence around that. It was just whether the emergency operations center center if we should look for other locations for that. That item ties directly to the next work plan item you see on the screen here which is develop a preliminary plan for police station improvements. The conversation was really around maybe needing to have an ad that really dives a little bit more deeply into what the needs are in the police station. And... maybe needing to have an ad hoc that really dives a little bit more deeply into what the needs are in the police station. And then if major improvements are merited, also taking a look at how we could fund a project like that. So that was I think sort of the conversation that took place at the ad hoc. an item that was on the list is developing plans, and this is just plans to renovate the public first floor library restrooms. The ad hoc had asked for some additional information about those restrooms, and so you'll see it here on the screen. It's in your report as well. There are well over 1,000 people that use the library every day. The restrooms, there are not a sufficient number of stalls to handle the patron traffic, the ventilation system doesn't work. And so it leads to some complaints. And there are some, you know, over time, ADA, American with Disabilities Act, you know, changes over time so there are some upgrades that are required and then the finishes are just, you know, they've been upgraded before but they're in need of replacement and refreshing. Work plan item 5.1.15, reevaluate plans and budget to renovate the city clerk's office. The ad hoc discussed whether this item should proceed during this next fiscal year in light of the budget challenges that we're facing. Since that time, I've had some conversation with City Clerk Ahmed about the need to secure the documents, the historic documents that we have in the office from deterioration and moisture and that sort of thing. And so we have additional information on that item should the council want to discuss it. Explore the use of the city hall tower spaces. This was a conversation we had back in December at that point. There was some concern about proceeding with this item not because people don't want to do it, but because there was some concern about proceeding with this item not because people don't want to do it but because there was some concern about you know budget challenges moving forward if this was the right time to do the upper floors of City Hall. And then finally we have implement a means tested rent subsidy program. The ad hoc discussed this item, this item. It's sort of, this item sort of grew out of COVID when people were laid off or unable to struggling to pay their rent and that sort of thing. We did have a program in place that assisted our residents along with the county and the state and had programs available to help people meet and meet make their ends meet. We do have some seed funding that is left over from that COVID program. We did not expend every dollar for toward that purpose. It was set aside a while back and council had a desire to look at maybe we need an ongoing rent subsidy program. The ad hoc wanted to have a discussion about, again, whether this should proceed this year right now in light of the budget challenges that we're facing. And there was one item that I flagged in the report, but I wanted to report it here that was inadvertently missed. We do intend to conduct a residential and commercial solid waste rate study. This next year and it just ended up, it didn't end up on the list. So I wanted flag that that we, since the ad hoc met, we have added that item to our work plan item 3.1.9. As I mentioned, the ad hoc also talked about a structure for the commission priorities. So I've put one up on the screen here as an example. So the idea would be that each commission would have a list of work plan items. We would have a little name of the project, so I've just picked health and safety commission. Day of wellness, a description of the program. And then when we get to the budget process, as council knows, budget items don't make it to Council unless they make it pass the City Manager's Office first. And obviously, if Council feels strongly that something needs to move forward, it moves forward. You have the final say. But on our commission priorities, I had asked the ad hoc to have the opportunity to provide a recommendation on whether from staff's perspective the project should move forward. I also requested the ability to be able to recommend any additional priorities that staff or city managers' office felt the commission should focus on. It's entirely up to the council whether to accept those recommendations or not. So in this case, we've had the conversation about health and safety and human relations commission merging together. And so, you know, just wanted to flag that both commissions work together on integrating together as we emerge those two commissions together. So you'll see in your packet there's essentially a sheet for all of the commissions that have sort of discretionary, they do discretionary work. So meaning for example, the planning commission, their work plan is pretty well set. They receive applications. They review the applications. They talk about the land use implications. That work is pretty well set. And they have very substantive meetings. Some of the other commissions may have some set work, but they also may have some discretion. And so it's really those commissions where we want to provide some guidance from the council on the kinds of discretionary projects they should or shouldn't be working on. So at this point I'm seeking the City Council's discussion and direction on the final City Council priorities and any feedback you may have on the commission priorities. Thank you. Great. Thank you for the report. Do we have any public comment? We do not have any public comment for this item. And any shape or form. In any shape or form. All right, thank you. So we're going to give a liaison report first and then I'd like to just check in with my colleagues. I think the best way to go through since it is we've already gone through the several times but we'll go through each there's there's seven priority sections so we'll go through each two at a time if there are any thoughts that you want to touch upon and then the last one a lot of will touch on the last one and the goals of the commissions to go through that. Does that sound comfortable for everyone? Excellent. All right. So, as part of the ad hoc committee, I wanted to, it was myself and Council Member Cormin. And we wanted to give an update on the priority setting process. This item has already come to Council several times. So we hope that everybody has felt that it was an inclusive process. The item is up for, I think, final review at this point. Given the budgetary constraints that we anticipate in the coming years, we took a closer look at the full list of priorities and identified a few areas that we believe are worth re-evaluating. Our guiding principle throughout all of this has been to distinguish between what is essential in the short term and what could reasonably be deferred. In our view, the items were suggested for postponement are not urgent and they're just suggestions or maybe some of them don't require immediate attention. I'm going to give you an opportunity to chime in. These could be held until we have greater economic clarity and have stronger financial position. Of course, we remain fully supportive of whatever direction the majority of the council ultimately decides. We approached this effort with care and diligence and really we went through line by line by line at the ad hoc level and we had several, several meetings to get to this point. A few new items that were brought to our attention during the last round were also clarified and refined to ensure this process remains as collaborative and transparent as possible. At this point, most of what you'll see reflects what we've already discussed and largely agreed upon as a council. Our hope is this final review helps move us forward to find consensus and positions us to focus on the most immediate and important and achievable priorities for the year ahead. And as our city manager mentioned, it's we really wanted it to be clear for everyone. For staff, for residents who wanted to a look at the list to see where we're at, milestones measurable, achievable, and current. With regard to the commissions, when we were preparing the commission standardization, when we were meeting, one of the topics that I kept hearing over and over again was that there was a lack of clarity and direction for a lot of the commissions. So one suggestion that I was happy to make was that perhaps we already have goals available and commissions serve at the privy of the council. So at the direction of our city manager, she was able to put each grouping of items that reflected and correlated with that commission into the pages that you see before you. And also with regard to what the commissions were currently working on and whether that was relevant or not to their work plan. In addition, there were certain items that the city manager has recommended that are at the end of each of the pages that you see CM recommendations, additional priorities that you'll find there. And then if I may go through some of these items, we also considered if it was a wish list or if it was a necessity. And the reasoning behind that was that if we spend funds to redo an area that we're planning on relocating or redoing altogether completely,, there would really be a waste of funds. So we wanted to be mindful of that and have a more long-range plan. So that's why the ad hoc was recommended and or if we needed it to be done immediately, and it was worth the funds. Sometimes we hear the words, it's already been budgeted. To me, that's not the answer. If something is going to be budgeted and done and then we're going to tear it down and redo it again, it's really a waste of money in a cycle. So that was something that came up. With regard to the police station, we felt that that was a larger discussion overall and that's why before we start making piecemeal recommendations, we wanted to be able to have a more studied approach to be able to look at the space and see how it would best serve the police department how we could perhaps have a long-range plan and and move forward from that with regard to the city clerk's office. I think that it's important now that we have new information I think it is absolutely important to preserve and move forward with preserving some of that information So that would be my recommendation I'll turn turn it over to Council Member Corman to make his recommendation on that as well. And as well as the rent subsidy program, he could speak to that. And for that, those are the recommendations that we made. I wanna turn it over to Council Member Corman too. I'm it. Thank you say in the bridge, review the bidding. Back in December, we first talked about this. The idea was that unlike in past years, this plan would actually only Really discuss things we're going to do or we think we're going to do this year. As opposed to something that's like 10 years out, 5 years out, a wishless type of things. And that's why you'll see some things in the report where we flag them as are these things we really want to do this year. We may, but we weren't sure. I mean, for example, the clerk's office, you just mentioned, you know, we know that the Clerk now has gotten the adjacent office access through a new doorway. So they have expanded into that area. The question is how much more work needs to be done to effectuate their operations. We just heard that obviously there is a problem with the docum retention, the historic docum concern, a room that apparently is susceptible mold, clearly nice, we needs to be remediated, but that's a smaller project also than redoing the whole space. So again, it's worth discussing what we want to do this year as opposed to in future years. And the same thing with the police station and the EOC, what do we want to do this year, as opposed to future years, and what makes sense to do this year, especially as Nancy said, you know, the EOC upgrades sort of dovetails with the whole question of do we run a redo the entire police department. If so, you don't want to, as the mayor just said, you don't want to move the EOC, spend a lot of money on new infrastructure and data backbone and say, oh, that's not where we want it in the long term. So again, things just to talk about. So other than that, I think that's really where we're at as far as why we flag these items, these particular items to discuss further today. Yeah, and I think we didn't mention the City Hall Tower space also. So that's another item that it's not a necessity, it's not an immediate item that we need. We're not having a shortage. I don't even know what the plan is for us with that space. What are we going to use it for? Have we discussed that yet? So. So, okay. So, we do have, we had preceded, you'll recall, to a certain point with documents for the fifth floor. The fifth floor has the floor plate is the same as the other floors of the tower, but it has that potential for an outdoor deck area. So we had discussed potentially using that space as an indoor outdoor, a meeting space, art exhibits, you know, that sort of thing. So we did progress with the plans for that portion. We've looked at, and probably the public works to have should speak to this, but looked at the upper floors, at least doing some basic finishing of those floors. I don't know if Miss Motahari would like to speak to that. Well, as she's walking up, I guess my question would be, and who would take those spaces? Who would be in there? Do you have we put money aside to already build it? Or is it something that would- Yes, to be mentioned- Ms. Moe to Hari will answer this question. Good afternoon. So for the first phase of tenant improvement or interior improvements, we have the fifth floor. It's about 950 square feet of multipurpose room with an ADA restroom. And as Nancy mentioned, we have about 2,500 occupied roof area. Once it's developed, it can be used in the outdoor meeting space. It also includes the improvement of five floors of lobbies and a restroom on seven level. So that is about 50% done in CDs. The floor six through eight, we were just keeping it as a shelf space, do the infrastructure for future development if it's going to be an office space, or that wasn't programmed at the time. So we just focused on the first phase. And I have to mention that there is a very substantial lighting design for the tower, which is included in the first face. Excerior, yes. To let the tower. And in terms of budgeting, we currently have a 9 million in the CIP. Part of that 9 million was going to be spent on seismic studies for phase 2 of seismic improvement of the city hall. And is it for the internal? Is that money also allocated for the internal work that needs to be done? Yes. I'm just looking if we're starting to project a $20 million deficit this may be an area it's not an immediate need. But anyway those are the recommendations that ad hoc is making and we're going to go through. So we're going to start with the first two SP1 and SP2. We're going to go through with questions and recommendations and we'll start with Councillor Memberwell's. Please go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I'd like to thank the ad hoc for all of the work that you've put into looking into our priorities for this year. When we first talked about this last year, we identified that we thought that the process could be better with a goal of really trying to streamline and time the priorities, the final approval of the priorities before the budgeting planning begins as well. We talked about aligning it with the work plans for the commission. And I think that this is really a great result so far in terms of timing. I would add that for fiscal year 26 and 27, I would add that for next year that we start even earlier because I think ideally it would be nice by December of this year to have the final priorities approved and then we could work with the commissions in December to work on their work plans. So then as budget planning starts were that much further ahead. I also think that the planning commission, I mean not the planning commission, the commissions when they talk about their events as well need more time in terms of planning in advance. So I think it would be ideal if we had that at the end of this year. And then if we did two times a year checking in with the commission as liaison, you'd meet, say, July, but you'd be following up from what that work plan would be. We already have that in the report. Nancy, did you mention that? There is a plan that the ad hawks would with the chair and vice chair two times a year. One is prior to their priority setting so that the commissions would be on board and one would be in July. June, July. June, July and the other one would be in December. I agree with that. I would just make it flip it so that you're actually doing the work plan, trying to get the work plan done in December. That would be my recommendation for that. Also I would add that I think it would be really ideal to add the mayoral initiatives in December while we do the priority setting as a council because then it gets worked into the budget and as well with what the commission work plans would be from so from a planning in advance time frame I think ideally it would be especially if there are things that are work plan type items if we could identify those at the same time we're doing the priorities I think it would be an ideal next step for us as we do this process. But for this year, for priority one, enhanced community safety and health, certainly the Metro is a priority and it's a hot priority because we're going to open the first Metro station by the end of this year. For me, I agree with all of these. My question would be, if we have a sense of what that cost is to create the kiosk and to add whatever the additional staffing and police scene that we're going to need in that area as well as any additional technology needs to go along with that. I don't need to have that today, but I would like to know that number because it does. These are big items that are going to really impact us from a budgeting standpoint that we're investing into our public safety, which we all know and want this to be here. But I think we have to really understand what the costs are for this as well as how that moves into the second station at La Sienica. So that would be really important for us to receive especially as we're looking at the budgeting process. For item two, goal two I would say which is to implement new technologies and support public safety. There are seven items that are listed under here, all related to technology and policing. And so really from WP1.2 point from 1 through 7. And my question would be, and again, I don't need to have the answer today, but are all of these of equal priority, or are some more important than others? And also, are any of these potentially funded with grant funding? Because it seems as though some of these are pilot programs and it would be nice to understand what the cost is associated with all of these And that's really one through seven when I look at When we get to the the upgrade for technology of the emergency operation center and examine the location of the EOC and I think we've already talked about this. I think we're going to be investing a lot in police and potentially when we're talking about the Kiosk added police, the added technology, I don't think right now it would be the time to move forward on that. I certainly support the technology part of it. With regard to moving the EOC, I think we have to, I would put that forward until we're past the deficit years. We could be planning it, are looking at it in advance, but I wouldn't be putting it into the budget until after those deficit years. Hopefully they won't be deficit years, but I would delay that. With regard to technology that gets put into this, I think that we have to consider what's an investment that can't be relocated in the future and it may be still important to make that upgrade right now or you may say it might be something that could hold off two years. I can't evaluate that but I would ask that we consider that when we do it. In terms of going to the next one, which is the goal of increasing pedestrian safety, which is a G13. For me, I would like to add that we prioritize this around the metro station and this rounding area because that is an impending Date this year. It's a date certain so if we're looking at these different areas as it relates to The metro station areas. I would prioritize the work going there first and an example of that would also be At one point we're talking about the different crosswalks and where there should go. And like for example, the six-way crosswalk, I would put that on hold right now and really focus on what's happening over at La Siannaga. So as you're doing, the kiosks, we're looking at the traffic, parking, transportation, all of the other activities that are going to be going on in that area. The other item is about the ballards. It's WP-132, which is to carry out phase 2 of the rodeo drive ballerard's project. And I support that. But I would add at finding a permanent solution for Beverly Gardens to replace the K-rails. And this obviously this has come up since we've last did the priorities, but it seems as though we're going to need a more permanent solution there. And I think it's such an iconic part of our city that we have to find a better Looking solution for that area that's that's long term and I would like to start looking at that this year For continue emergency preparations, which is goal 1.4. I would like to include in that assessing our relocation centers that we've identified and making certain that the relocation centers, right now we have La Sianne again, we. I would want I would like to consider whether or not we need one north of Santa Monica because there's nothing that's north of Santa Monica. Secondly I would want to make certain that those facilities are maintained at the highest level so the the bathrooms, the backup power, just the general maintenance of those areas, so that they are the most well-maintained possible, so it should be find ourselves needing that as an emergency center, that we know the HVAC is working, that where our backup power is coming from. So I think that should be a priority along the lines with the emergency preparations. For WPI 1, I guess it's WP 1.4.2, which is adopt and implement that very high fire hazard severity zone. Again, I would prioritize looking at in the north since this is above Santa Monica. I'm now also including the 800 blocks of the flats. Making certain that we are prioritizing our power reliability with Southern California Edison. From their last meeting they had presented. They talked about the fact that the vaults that get the water in them, they've been able to identify which ones those are and we need to find a solution for that. We need to have, they identified multiple transformers in that area that need to be replaced and I would prioritize that along the lines of this. I'm sorry. Just real quick. Are these items that we've already discussed? In some cases, yes. And in some cases, no. I don't think, do you want this much detail in the priorities right now? Take whatever feedback council would like to provide. Thank you. So along the same lines, I think we have to look at the evacuation routes from Santa Monica and above if that's determined to be now an expanded high fire hazard severity zone. For SP2 which is practice effective and transparent governance. I already spoke about this in terms of the for 2.1.1 I would add to this adding the initiatives as part of the conversation for the installation. So trying to move that forward or backward so that we're planning it earlier. For 2.1.2, this is a question I would like us to, I'd like us to make it a priority and it's around the conducting the election for June of 26. We have the issue about term limits has come up multiple times. We talked about it when we talked about the vice mayor and the elections and also how we rotate. And then we also see in the papers that this is coming up and I know that we had the voters voted and I think that it's really important for us as a city to take a stand on this and be very clear where we are because I don't think that this is a good position for us to be in if it's getting batted around back and forth. So I think it's important as part of our elections for June 2026. It also impacts people that are considering to run. They don't know who's running who's not running When the conversation keeps flipping around are we're hearing different things out in the public So I think it's important for us as a council and as a city to make a very clear statement about that for WP 2.13, carry out the mayor initiatives. I think that we'll be doing that with regard to the events when they start to talk about the events. I had a couple questions about those, but I think those can wait when those become event conversations. For G, let's see. Adjust the commission work plans, which was G2.3. I already commented on that about the timing. For SP3,ure financial stability. We're not doing that one yet, right? Right. Just doing one or two. Okay. Those are my comments and I would welcome my council members feedback on the things that I think should be added in the focus. One last thing I just wanted to say and it's more of a, it goes across all of them. When we talk about space in the city, be it for place that you see the clerk's office when we're talking about tower or city hall, I mean city hall is one of our most premier assets in our city and it is such an important building for us, I think we should be investing in making certain that it is always its finest and available to the public, for the public's ability to enjoy as well. A more global thing I think we need to talk about when we talk about real estate and we talk about how we're moving forward, be it for public works and we can come up as we go. Is that we, I think we should have a global space planning look at the city in terms of if storage is in the city clerk's office which is in city hall which is our prime location is that really the place to be storing long term documents and investing to facilitate that when there's plenty of options where we can have secure storage facilities that are not in our most premier real estate or buildings in the city. And I think that we have to look at that. I'm not only in that situation, but other situations throughout the city be it with public works or other buildings that we have. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor McCormick. Sure. Well, obviously I'm in favor of the draft priority list as it's in our packet because we looked at it at our meeting. I would on the list of the list provided by staff in our report of the questionable items. The only one in 1 and 2 is WP 1.2.8, which is the upgrade of the EOC. The concern that I've wasted at the committee was, I understand the technology is older, it's seven years old, which I guess on the computer world and the data processing world is a lifetime, although for the rest of us, the fact that it's so antiquated seems a little interesting. But the concern I had was if we do put money into the OC now, make sure that we're not putting money into it, we're not buying things that can't be moved if we're going to move the you will later. So for example, if we have cat-five wiring and we need to replace it all with cat-eight wiring and you're talking about several miles of wiring, is that something we want to do now, as opposed to when we decide where the UOC is going to wind up. So those were the concerns that I had. It wasn't so much as you point out. wasn't so much whether we should upgrade the actual physical equipment, but just how far do you take that given the fact that you may not be there and I'm not sure whether we need now to decide whether we're going, you know, what alternative location there is. we decide that and we all know the police department is not the most ideally laid out department for functionality reasons. So if we decide that we want to start looking at changing or things around there, then obviously I would hold off looking for alternative EOC location. Now, respect to some of the suggestions just made. I agree that if we're going to look at phase two of the Rdaudrive Ballard's project, we should look at the Beverly Gardens Park, what we're doing with the K-Rails. We didn't know we were going to the K-Rails until we decided we needed them after New Orleans. And so we put them in. I know there's now some issues even where they're so heavy, they're sinking into the ground and tilting. So clearly that shows we need to figure out what we're going to do there. We want want a permanent, baller installation, what should it look like and then figure that out? It may be the K-Rails, it may not be the K-Rails. I know that staff did look at small turns that were frightfully expensive and give it our budget constraints not doable, but we should figure that out. So I do agree that should be in the work plan, figure that out, whatever it is, not necessarily spend too much money at this point. As far as the suggested about G1 point for the emergency preparations, I wanna make sure that we're clear we're not micromanaging things in this plan. So for example, saying, well, we need to make sure that everything works. The AC works, HVAC works, and electricity works. You know, I think that we can leave the staff. I don't think that needs to be in a council priority. And you know, I do think that the the the the the the fact we have two large facilities. We have them where they are for a reason that's been looked at before. If we could have placed one north We would have I think at one point we looked at Hawthorn As a as a location so all of our schools are Designated as a potential emergency shelters as well and I'm gonna look for fire chief I can't remember I should know this if the library is designated as a shelter. I know it's a cooling center, yes. So Roxbury and La Siena go out emergency shelters and then I think our schools are secondary. Good afternoon. The issue with the schools, thank you. The issue with the schools is if the schools in session, then we can't come in as a city and take that over. Because the schools need to take care of the kids. So that's part of the issues that conflict that- So Hawthorne, obviously, other than the preschool area is not in session anymore because it's not being used to school, other than the preschool area. Correct, and we'll take a look at that based off of the comments that we're getting. We just haven't gotten there yet with the change. That's occurred. Okay. Similarly, I think the evacuation planning and whether the evacuation planning is up and running, I think is not necessarily a city priority. I mean, council priority. That's a city management priority. I think that's something you would normally do, so I would not be adding that. I'm a little unclear about the request to add the mayoral initiatives to the priority setting process are, is the suggestion that the council should have a veto power over mayoral initiatives? I don't think it's a veto power. I think it's important as we look at the priorities. So if something, more than likely, if it's a work plan item, it's probably going to be part of that anyway. But if it's something that's outside of that, we should have that in consideration as we look at what the different things are because you may shift things around to accommodate for that. And I think it's, you know, from a planning standpoint, it's ideal to have those things in advance. The other part of that is if we also try and time the commission setting around that same time before we get too far into the budgeting in the year, you will be able to then also communicate those initiatives that require time, like advance planning, you'll be able to put that into the commission more plans as well. Instead of kind of coming back after. So I have a clarifying question about that if I may. I know it's a bit of a shift from the culture standpoint because I think at least for the last couple it's been announced at the installation. and we don't have to decide it now. It's a suggestion for us to consider in the next cycle. So I would be in favor of keeping the system as it is. I think the way it works now is that the mayoral initiatives are the mayor's and there is a budget allocated for those initiatives and as long as the Maryland initiatives stay in that, within that budget, I don't think that needs to come to the city council for approval. Now we know there have been instances where Maryland initiatives have needed existing additional funding and those do come to the council and this should come to the council. So I think that's the distinction I would make as far as which an issue, as Maryland issues, should be in the priority setting process and which shouldn't. I would just say, I think, sorry to interrupt, but that's my thinking as well. It's things that are really having an impact from a work plan and budgeting standpoint. Right, so I continue to council member Cormick. With respect to the commission, when the commission priors, I think that the current proposal from staff is pretty much what you're talking about. That the liaisons go over the proposed commission activities prior to the budget, that the priorities coming to the council. And then after the council decides what it wants to do, then they go back in July and they say, prior to the budget that the priorities coming to the council. And then after the council decides what it wants to do, then they go back in July and they say here are the priorities for the year and they check in in December and in December, there's going to be discussion of what's next year. Obviously, because you have to have the discussion at some point. So I think that's pretty much contemplated in the process laid out. If I'm wrong, maybe the same answer can tell me. I guess I guess council member Wells can speak for herself and having said that I think what I heard which may or may not be correct is starting the commission priority setting for the fiscal year the sort of draft when we start our draft in December so that they have time to prepare for the kind of following the draft formal that's what I heard but obviously she can speak. Right so I mean the priorities the priorities need to come to the council at the same time the other priorities come to the council that's right I mean that's a world I'm going to agreement right? Yes. Right so I think that's isn't that what's contemplated by the process that you suggested? I think what wasn't clear was when would we start contemplating the commission priorities for the upcoming fiscal year? Would that be as we said our draft priorities in November December, so that they're already thinking toward the new fiscal year? Or would they be brought, this in in May for the upcoming fiscal year? And we can obviously do it either way, and it may be easier for the commissions to have a little bit more lead time. So I thought the proposal was that in December the commissions and the liaison would check in and they would have an idea of what the commission wanted in the coming year so that when the priorities come to the council in the next few months after that, that would be wrapped up into the council priorities. I see. Okay. So I actually think we're on the same page. So long the same lines. My overall theme about that is just moving it earlier so that there's, this is better than it was but even more time before the budget planning starts in December would be even better. Well, so but you need to have the council decide whether they agree with the priorities in the priority setting before you do the budget. So I don't think you can I mean I think that as long as the or priorities are discussed at the same time, the council priorities and the budget process, I think that's what we need. In December. When we discuss the priorities, yeah. And then as far as the trumliners are concerned, you know, I don't know, again, I think that's beyond the level of detail of this plan. We have term limits. They are what they are. And clearly the council believe the term limits are in existence. The residents voted them in 80, 20 in the current format. Whether people think that the terminaments are a good idea or a bad idea or aren't right is beyond, I think, our purview, we have terminaments. We can't control whether people are saying or think about the terminaments. So I don't know if there's anything to be said more about that in this plan to be honest. Okay, and those are my comments on when. Thank you council member. Friedman. So I just want to take a look at this for a moment just so I understand what we're doing. We're doing one and two now and we're going to do three and four and then five and six and then the council and that's all what we're going to be doing today. The truth of the matter is that I thought we were going to be going much faster than this because we already went through all of this. So this is a little bit of a shift and we're kind of starting all over again at this point. And so if we wanted to complete our priorities today, I don't see how that's gonna happen. Okay. So I don't know how long we're gonna keep continuing this, but we even tried to start earlier so that we would finish. What time do we need to go to close up? Well, I think the first two are longer than the... Okay, so let me let me do. I mean, that's one of the reasons we were we just want to polish it up as the ad hoc and bring it back and I'm a little surprised that the details that we're getting into but what time do you want to go into closed session? I'd recommend for you know 434-45 somewhere in there. I mean we were hoping to go a little earlier, right? Then that, I'll try and go a little bit quicker, but that's how I started out. We'll see if I finish up that way. I think that the priorities are really a general guideline. I think if we get way into the weeds on the priorities, we really lose sight of what can actually be accomplished during the year. I think that having priorities set forth at least shows where we want to be, we want staff to work on it. There are always turns in the road along the way that we have to do something different. I'll give an example during my year when the mayoral initiative was set forth and then all of a sudden we had the mayor's conference on anti-semitism and it just threw everything off. There's only a certain amount of time that staff has for things that come up and it really derails a lot of what the planning is but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a plan and then show what it is that we really need to try and accomplish. So let me go through at least the Beverly Hills Police Department Public Safety Center. I think that is a main priority. I think that's something that we're going to be spending a lot of time on. I think there's going to be some significant budgetary hits on that item. So I think that very well is placed as one of the first priority. in terms of the police department. I think when I started on council eight years ago, one of the first things I had was a tour of the police department and went through every room and how it was constructed or it it'll conceived constructed. We've been talking about it for eight years. I think it's something that needs to be done eventually, but I really think we're going to wind up trying to make the best of what we have. I don't think we're going to tear down the whole place and start over again. It's just the cost estimate that we had way back then was exorbitant. And I just don't think we in the near future we can even think about doing that. But yes, I think there are modifications certainly to the emergency operations center. We saw the emergency operations center as is right now as much different than when I first started. Certainly when John's first started, it's even more, more different than that. Everything is on one floor. I think it's inefficient. I think it's efficient. In the manner it's being used right now, can it be more efficient? Absolutely. Can we get more technology, yes? But I think we should leave that as a priority, but it's something that I think staff can handle. I really, I think that the outline is fine. I don't have an issue with the outline at all. I think that it does highlight where we would like to be, what we would like to do. And I'm gonna leave my comments at that. Thank you. Vice Mayor Mersh. Thank you. And I'll also try to be fairly brief. As I mentioned before, I mean the process, I get it that we do in ad hoc, but that is new. And I think priority setting is something that impacts all of the council and while we indeed have the opportunity to comment during the process, I would like to see us to go back to an initial process where all the council members at one sort of do it, discuss and decide what the priorities are and perhaps then you have individual ad hawks to narrow down the individual work plans for whatever those priorities are. So in this case though, I will say that I agree with the just going through these initial points. I agree that we should upgrade the technology of the EOC as has been stated. It shouldn't be fixed. It should be a movable feast. Clearly technology is movable. We have a mobile command center as well. That is an important thing. Going to Lesson's point, yes. A few years ago, we looked at what it would cost to redo the police department. I mean, then it was a quarter of a billion dollars. And that's something that we clearly don't have right now. So we really need to look at what we have, make the best out of it for the foreseeable future, and figure out how to be as effective. It certainly hasn't stopped us from being perhaps the best police force in Southern California. And if there are minor cosmetic changes we can make to help we should do that. I guess that's point two sort of preliminary plan for police station improvements. Library restrooms, yes we should obviously have decent restrooms. And I'll agree with the rest of the recommendations. I mean the city hall tower spaces are an opportunity for us. If we need additional space, which is expensive elsewhere, we pretty much have it here. We need to do TI's, but we need to then make a plan about the sorts of things that we would do. And I agree, we maybe have additional funds for rent subsidy program left over. We can look at that. We're going to need to go forward, also look at it for some of the most impacted, especially if some of these builders remedy projects cause displacement among some of our residents. The other brief points I guess I agree with Craig about the Maryland initiatives. I think we should keep the system. If they're, you know, it often mayors will not know in December what they want to do in April or whatever, though. Think through it and they'll not have any grand plans. But if someone does have grand plans that they want to do something that is going to go above and beyond the cost and expense, then clearly that is something that can and should be addressed early on. Rodeo Drive Ballards agree we need to look at that. Sadly, we live in a world in which probably we do need to figure out a long-term plan for K-rails or ballards for Beverly Gardens, especially in front of the Beverly Hills sign, which is always packed. They're always people there. Sadly, that would be a target in this world that we live in. And it should be something though that I don't know what Craig saw that was outrageously expensive, but it should be something that is in line with what the city is. It shouldn't just be, you know, water filled, K-rails or whatever. That is a, it is still the most photographed site in town, and we need to it with with that respect at Craig Also mentioned term limits we do have term limits. I don't think it's for the council to discuss with the legal interpretation of state law may or may not be that Plays out separately and Other than that I am You know again happy to go go into details. I think, I'd like to say despite the fact that I feel that the process is something that we should be more inclusive, I think the ad hoc did an excellent job. And I would just add a couple of points that I will be nothing new to anybody here that when it comes to SB3 to ensure financial stability and economic viability, just basically the principles, it's a two-sided coin. On the one hand, the money that we spend, we need to ensure that we provide the best value for money, the best value for tax payer dollars. And then we also need to, and I know we are and have discussed this, so I'm repeating it, look for alternative revenue sources to enhance. We have the, as I think Jupp Nier says, we have the four legs of those four main taxes, business license property sales, and TOT, and we can maybe look at, instead of having a four-legged table, maybe having a five or six-legged table, we should be doing that. I know one of the things that I've mentioned when it comes to that and that I hope and I think is on the radar and that we will be doing this year and not rating would be next to studies because a lot of the development that is going to be forced upon us is going to cause additional expenses for which we don't have a budget even now and we need to. And we are allowed by state law to charge those who create the incremental needs and incremental services and incremental costs to actually pay for that. And I think it's really important that we do that. Some of the other things, some of the other things that we have discussed that I know are coming down the pike like the parking issue and length of covenants for affordable housing and those sorts of things. I'd love to see those not only in the next year but the next couple of months. But other than that great, you know, great job and you know there's a lot here and it is a, it's an evolving document and an evolving process which we all work on. So thank you, Mayor and thank you, Council Member Corman and thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. So as we said, these were also recommendations that were made through an entire process. They came from the departments and the chiefs and the city manager. So it wasn't something that we came through lightly. I think that it was also organized. This was a question that we had initially. It was organized by level of importance. So just for clarity on that. I've pretty much gone through a lot of my comments with regard to next-a-studies and parking. I think that that's already something that's been placed on our agenda from my understanding as far as it's being placed for the planning department to review. That's covered, actually, 3.1.2, yes. far as the ballers are concerned, I think that we'd never pick the ballers that were put on rodeo drive. I made that very clear that that was not aesthetically something that I would pick or you know, but that was something that rodeo drive agreed on. And I guess there's cost constraints involved. So I'm open to looking at that for other areas that now, unfortunately, we need to be mindful of. There was something that was mentioned about the six-way crossing. That's something that we've already agreed on as council, and it's extremely important that we move forward with it. It's an area we decided not to go with forward with a roundabout but those crosswalks are imperative for people who walk in that area all the time to ensure their safety. There was a young man who was just recently run over because of crosswalking situations and a drunk driver. So I think that the more that's already not in our city. Thank you for clarifying that. Not in our city, but tragic all of them. With regard to the mayoral initiatives, I think that there's a form of respect that we always provide for each other. We only have a year to be mayor. And it's really to start six months or several months in advance before it's our term to start as mayor. I think would really be stepping on other mayor's toes. You know, I know that when I was starting to plan my initiatives, I really was trying to be mindful to respect my colleagues and to respect former mayor Friedman so that we move forward in a way that as we have in years past. So I would absolutely keep it as is. I think staff does a great job of being mindful and respectful. And part of the reason why we're doing this is so that council sets the priorities and then they're passed over to the commissions. So I don't have a problem with the way that it's set. We're still going to meet with them in June and in December. The way that it's already set up is I feel comfortable with it. Again, this was kind of done to simplify the process. I think the more details that we put into this working document, the more difficult it would be for our city manager to do what she's in place to do. And I think I'm going to ask everyone for the next three to just go through real quick with the last P3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to go through all those with any additional recommendations that exist outside of what we've already discussed in the last three meetings that we've had on this topic. So, yes. Please go ahead. Thank you. please go. Thank you. For SP3, which is an insure financial stability and economic viability, the only comment I have is about the one that was added on, which is WP3.1.9, which is the solid waste rate study. And my request would be, I understand that we do this regularly and that, you know, as expenses go up, we look at rate studies to figure out the most equitable way to pass that through to the residents. But what I really want to hear about as well is, and we're doing this as we look at the CIP projects as well, is to really understand in what way we've looked at this area first in terms of how can we reduce the expenses instead of just going straight to a rate study increase. So I would like to understand that more and put an emphasis on that for all of the different similar utilities that we have where we do studies to just increase the rates for the residents is to really take a hard look at is it possible to reducing expenses for us instead of passing this on to the residents? That's all for priority three. For priority four, the only thing I would suggest is one, for G4.3, improve public spaces, it talks about there's really only one work plan item here and that's with regard to the playground at La Siena And this actually dovetails into the priority five. So whether my comment is in four or five, it's similar. And that is, and I mentioned this earlier, is to make certain that, like for example, for priority five, 1.1.5, which is with regard to the parking structures, I definitely think that given our budget constraints and where we are today, the focus should be on looking at the parking structures and making certain that they are the most well maintained they can be in terms of the stairwells and the elevators and paint and paint inside and outside so that these are public spaces that people are in and out of daily and That's where I want the focus to be not necessarily. I'm moving forward on changing the facade if it does tails with Certain seismic changes that have to happen and as well Going forward and where we talk about adding the EV chargers I just think that that if we're looking at deficits and in this year and the next two years, those things don't have to happen immediately. First and foremost, we have to make certain that those bases are clean and well maintained for not just residents but for visitors as well. I can't walk through stairwell at the parking structures. They're just really in poor condition. For other items for that except for the clerk's city clerk's office which I already talked about. I would, you know, there are different companies that store documents and they store them well in the proper conditions where I think we should be looking at moving not just for the City Clerk's office, but for other offices. work, we've been moving that storage that's more efficient and effective? It doesn't have to be in our prime real estate. It could open up a lot of other open space and going back to my point about planning. And then I would look at our space and say, for example, if the planning department needs more space, is if we opened up a lot of space because we removed things like storage that don't need to be there, would we need to be really expanding or would we be reconfiguring within our office spaces that we have? We may have the space if we cleared out a lot of things that are taking up space right now that could be better stored elsewhere. In terms of environmental stewardship for SP7, my comments are this. I think it's really important that we're prioritizing for Metro. So for 7.1.2 it's really important that that's within that work plan we're prioritizing Metro. If we look at G7.2 for reduced carbon emissions and expanding the level to EV chargers in the city park instructors. I would want to put that on hold right now and understand the cost and prioritize where do we really need that first. We're putting money into public safety and there's also in here the plan to add the chargers for the city public works. Again, I'd like to understand that more before just moving that forward. Because I don't understand, I know we often do things as early as possible, but what the timeline is in terms of replacing vehicles at what point is it critical to have the fast chargers there. How much infrastructure and money is put into be able to put those fast chargers in for the two fleet specific DC fast chargers? Is there a lot of infrastructure that needs to go there? If it's Southern California Edison that's putting focus there instead of putting focus where the residents need to have power right now. I think we have to look at that in a more global way and prioritize. And for me, we should be prioritizing what's immediate now in this year, which is for residents to have power, to have reliable power. That we add the charges when we need them, but if we don't need them now, really understanding that. Also, if we look at space overall, if the public works that where this would get installed potentially could move or would be moving, then we should also understand that before we're investing in that area. And so I just think we have to, they can't just be in silos. We have to think about it in a more global way for the city. And then lastly, and I said it before, but it's not really called out in here and that is about, we should have a priority with regard to Southern California at providing reliable service and really addressing that It's definitely a priority for me and I think it's even more so as we look at the increase for the high fire zone I just think that it needs to be called out as a priority. And with regard to the bathrooms in the library, because that is a cooling center, again, the places where we're relying on our public facilities, not just for the daily, which it is an important asset for our city, but also in an emergency that we make certain that those facilities are really maintained and updated so that they can handle that situation. We want to make certain that those facilities are in the best condition possible for emergency preparedness as well as for our residents to be able to enjoy. Did you want me to go through these last things that were called out? I feel like we already went through them but if you need to give additional direction. Yes, we already talked about the EOC, we talked about the police station. I just talked about the library restrooms. I definitely think we should move forward on that. The City Clerk's office, I think we should look at the documents first and then decide what needs to be done with that space. With regard to the City Hall tower space, if I understand correctly what what would be happening this year is moving, is continuing to move those plants forward. And I think it's important for us to move those plants forward. We spent a ton of money on the seismic retrofitting. We're like, you know, for phase one, so close to that, being, you know, moving it forward, it's our most iconic asset in our city. And it's our most important building. And we've invested, you know, it's like we went 90% and then we decided we weren't gonna finish. And I think that that space is public space. It's space that residents can be there for that, many different organizations within our city could utilize that space. It's an amazing view. It's in the beautiful building. I think having it lit and lit properly is really taking care of our assets. And so I would prioritize that because it's, everybody looks at it and the more people that are part of the public that are able to enjoy it I think that's the right thing to do. With regard to the rent subsidy program I think we should continue to have that conversation I think it's important and not certain how that should look but I do think it's important. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council member Cormin. Thank you. All right. So with respect to what's in the report I support within the report in the plans through the priorities, three through seven. Couple of things. Some recent, as far as, there's a comment about WP 3.1.9 that not just conduct a solid waste rate study but justify increases but also look for efficiencies. I think again I think that's micromanaging. The rate study is designed to make sure that our fees cover our costs. Public works and city management is always I assume looking for ways to be efficient. We can say it but I think that's part and parcel of it. And I think that that's not just a council prior, that's a city management priority and a public works priority. So I don't know if that needs to be spelled out. on SP5.1 which I would maintain public for citizens for such the same thing. I mean, I'm, you know, when you type it maintain public facilities, you're trying to maintain the clear and clean and usable conditions. That's independent of whether we're going to, you know, change the facade, but they should always be painted. They should always be cleaned. And I've looked at the, you know, the check registers every meeting, and there's often, you know, substantial janitorial services, there's, you know, painting services. So, I don't want anyone to think that the fact that it's not spelled out explicitly in this priority document doesn't, it means that it's not a priority. It is a priority. It's an ongoing priority for public works and for us. With respect to adding an NSP7, a separate goal of reliable power, well, look, just no question that is that priority of the council to get Edison to provide a reliable power. Unfortunately, it's largely out of our control. We can say it's a goal of ours. I'm not sure what the work priority item, work plan item would be other than continue to have discussions with them and explain to them why it's so important that they provide real valuable power. But that is not something that we can, other than talk to them and try to persuade them and control them and do whatever we can, that's not something that we can actively accomplish on our own, which is largely what these priorities are for. Respect the G7.2, I raised the idea of perhaps putting work plan 7.2.1 on hold as well. I'm not sure we need, that's 7.2, it's expand level 2 EV chargers. I'm not sure we need to be spending a lot of money on that right now in our parking lots and other areas. A lot of people in the city who have electric cars have level 2 charges at home. And so I'm just not sure whether that's so important to our residents at this point. with respect to the fast charge and the DC charges, do we, is that being funded partly through grant money because I guess it was my understanding that that was the case. And if it's not, I do agree with Councilor Wells that this is something we should look at, but if that's grant money that's up to us giving us, then obviously we should be looking at that. Good afternoon the grant money was for if we needed to upgrade the service what we've opted to do is not upgrade the service go only to garages that can take it take the additional but we are finding that these charges are being used extensively. We have a lot of people with electrical charges who are showing up to work and they can't, they're wanting to charge. And so that's a prime example. People leave nasty notes on my car to move the car. That's the level two charges, right? Yes. I'm talking about the book, so I... Oh, yes. It's been another... You're saying... Oh, the DC fast charges. fast chargers we had. We've purchased the DC fast chargers already. It's been another, you're saying we, you say. Oh, the DC fast charges. I'm sorry, the DC fast charges we had, we've purchased the DC fast charges already. It's just we have to install them. We purchased two, we found them on sale, and they were under, and they were under the city managers authority to purchase them. So. Was that grant money at all or not? I do not believe we use grant money, it was a special program that we got the deal. All right, well, so we already spent the money. Okay, so much for that. There's additional costs then just the DC charge. We don't want to hold on to something and then does it become obsolete if we don't install it now? We are and we are in the currently it has been lifted that commercial fleets do not have to convert by 2035 but has not been lifted for Public fleets and so we are actively purchasing EVs for public safety for public works So I think to have at least two fast charges would be helpful if we have a fleet of of EVs and obviously a couple of fast charges We would be beneficial to make sure the car stay on the road. All right, thank you. With respect to the items mentioned staff report. Again, the development preliminary plan for police station improvements. We could talk about that if you wanted to set an ad hoc to begin discussions, but I wouldn't want to spend much money on that this year. The developed plans to renovate the public floor, public first floor library restrooms, I agree that obviously needs to be done. We needed more detail about why and clearly now have it. Yes. Work plan 5.1.1, 5.1.15, reevaluate plans, renovate clerk's office. So, you know, the off-site storage idea is an interesting one, but I think that depends on whether these are documents that need to be referenced. If they're documents that just sit in a closet and no one ever looks at them, then I agree an off-site storage facility might make sense. If these are documents that need to be referenced from time to time, then that doesn't make sense. I have a feeling we're looking at a combination here. But to the extent that we need to keep some of them on site, then obviously we need to store them effectively. Beyond the storage of that, go ahead. Thank you. I really appreciate everyone taking the time to review our request. So to answer your question, Council Member, it is we are looking at it from two different phases. One is actually to have a storage and archival space inside the city clerk's office for documents that we do need to access more regularly. And then there are documents that we are required by law to keep in hard copy form and perpetuity. And we may or may not at times go back for research purposes or whatever other issues there may be, but we can store those documents off site. So it's a conversation that needs to be had because right now the request is not cosmetic it's not cosmetic, it's not about staff seating as much as it is about all these documents, the city's assets. These records are in critical condition with this here. So I would say that with respect to documents, I agree that docks need to be maintained properly. So I would say with respect to the documents that can be stored off site because they need to be under state law, maintained in perpetuity, but you don't look at them, they can be stored in a secure temperature controlled facility. And that might reduce the footprint of the facility you need to be temperature controlled onsite, which might reduce hopefully the cost. Now it may be that does not the case, in which case if we have to store some things on site and they have to be stored in a temperature controlled properly, properly designed room and you know, you could be the size of a clasor, size of a closet plus two closets or whatever and we already have that space framed out then obviously you would just do that space and keep everything there and not incur the additional expense of storing it off site if you have the space on site. I think that other than making sure that the documents are stored correctly I would hold off an additional renovations of the clerk's office at this point for budget reasons that's just by feeling. May I add to it? Go ahead. If you would have mind. Thank you. That's all fine. Whatever the council would like, that's okay. But again, my concern is that these documents have already had mold on them. These are the ones inside the city clerk's office. We had remediation work done. We anticipate that the mold again will return because the space is not correct. The space you're looking at, you're thinking of the vault, which is a space that was created for not, it wasn't for long-term use. It was a temporary fix. And what had happened was that there was documents all over the place, which they currently are. They're in our kitchen, they're on the sides, they're next to the staff, they're all over the place. They're in city garages. And that is the issue that we're facing from a historic perspective. And I'm very, very concerned about it. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't advise the council on this. Yeah, and I agree with you that the extent that the documents need to be preserved in a properly controlled environment we should do that and well I'm only saying and I think that's an necessity I think we should proceed with that. And all I'm saying is to the extent that there are documents that go off site, and that would reduce the construction costs on site, I think we should do that because we want to save the money. That's all I'm saying. So that's that one. I do not think we ought to proceed right now with work plan 5.2.4 of the city hall tower spaces. As I recall in our last discussion, yes, we spent money, but the money you're spending going forward is significant. We have budget deficits. We're not sure we would use those spaces for it. We haven't used them up until now. We've gotten by just fine. This is a wish list item as far as I'm concerned. I think it's something we'd love to do. Love to have it, the facility. Love to have it as a public facility that people could use. But I don't think it's necessary right now and I think if we're looking to save money, this is an era we can do that. With respect to work plan 6.2.3, the means, test, and rent subsidy program. Same thing. Love to have it. But I- money this is an area we can do that. With respect to work plan 6.2.3, the means tested rent subsidy program, same thing. Love to have it, but I think given the budget deficits, it's maybe beyond us for this year and so I would not have that in this particular work plan, but let's recognize that these are things we would want to do going forward when we have the money. Okay, that's it, thanks. All right, thank you very much. Councilmember Friedman. Thank you. So, starting with SP3, I'm sure financial stability that is absolutely essential. I think that's going to be something that we really need to look at this year, even more than we have in the past. I think that there was a blue, during mayor gold's term, there was the blue ribbon committee which looked at that time about enhancing revenue. That was the charge of that group was to look at enhancing revenue and there were suggestions that were made and I think we need to implement some of those. So I think that is of extreme importance. I think staff needs to look at ways to reduce. I think that's something that needs to be brought to council in terms of what we can reasonably look at. I think what council member Korman just said is in terms of the tower is an example of that. I don't think that's something we need to spend money on now. I don't think that what we have done in the past is incorrect. I think that we need to do the seismic work, which would have really preserved the building. I just don't think we need to go to the next step unless we need space. I would first remodel that space before we had to take space elsewhere, but I don't think we're looking for space elsewhere at this point in time anyway. So I think that is something we need to look at. We certainly, and I haven't been a big fan up till now of next studies. I am one now. I think that with the state taking so much control away from us in terms of what can be built. I think we do need to pass those expenses along at this point in time. Before I thought it was a a hamper on development, I think development can go wild at this point in time and we need to make sure that those expenses that are incurred by the city are passed along to those developers. So I think that is something that has seen its time now. In terms of the solid waste rate study, I think we're, we had this, I think several years back where we really negotiate good contracts going forward. And what happens at the end of that contract is that prices have gone up significantly. Services have changed. In other words, the requirements of the state and what they expect the city to do. And I think that we're going to need to pass those expenses on. I don't think that we are in a position where we as a city can just absorb those. So we can explain what that addition entails. So currently in our capital improvement budget, as it stands today, we have funding for the Bedford and Beverly seismic design. So we'll look at the structures, develop up the plans, all the work that needs to be done, design it out. But we don't have the funding as of today to actually do the seismic work at those two lots. We do have funding for the Camden Phase 2 seismic upgrade. So we have funding to bring that project to completion, is my understanding. And this is all enterprise money, parking enterprise money that we're talking about. I'm going to have Ms. Mota Hari speak again. Okay. So the fund 130 is going to pay for Camden, the Beverly Ann Bedford. The Beverly Ann Bedford, we're doing design currently. And then Camden design is finished with it, phase one before Maria was developed in, you know, their TI. And now we are ready to bid for phase two. It's there in low parking fund, 130. So once again, the funding is from the parking enterprise fund. Yes. So we have to use it. Yes. And we don't have enough funding in that enterprise fund at this point in time to do all the seismic work. So so you know, I mean, it depends. We are using some of it for EV chargers. You know, that are in triangle. If it is not to do that, then it relates to some funds to do the seismic upgrade. But currently we are doing the design, so we haven't bid it yet. It's just budgeted, estimated budget. Okay. So, in terms of funding for that, I think that's something that we need to look at coming from the parking enterprise fund. I think that's something that is part of the blue ribbon committees charge in terms of looking at areas of funding and that's something I think that needs to be looked at as we go forward. Can I jump in just for one second? Of course. I don't mean to interrupt but you just said something good. This goes back to something I said. If the level two chargers are being partially paid for by in lieu parking fund fees that would otherwise be used for size upgrades on the parking garages, I think we should use that money for the size upgrades rather than the EV chargers. That's just my two cents. And I do, I want to clarify one thing, Council Member Friedman, so the in-loop parking funds, Mr. Gollett, tell us about those. Is that parking fund? In-loop parking funds, I do not believe go to the parking fund. However, we use them for parking facilities that are within the in lieu parking district, generally within the triangle. And so we would plan to use the money that is in the in lieu fund first where we can. That's what we're looking at for the seismic work on the Bedford garage. We are not able to use the in-loop fund for the South Beverly garage. So what we're trying to do is prioritize where can we spend the in-loop money first before we start dipping into other funds or having to you know make decisions about which projects go forward and don't. I don't want to go too much in the weeds on this, but in terms of the EV chargers, is that a cost recovery item or partial cost recovery, full cost recovery? I'm not sure if we have ever studied it, but I do know that the rates that we charge for the EV chargers are well above our utility rate that we pay for the electricity. In terms of the electricity, but I'm talking about the installation also. Our assistant director of public works, Mr. Grilly. Good afternoon. I don't think so presently, but we are initiating. It's one of the other priorities is a rate study, parking rate study, and that will be specifically something we look at. Okay, because it should be, I mean, if we're going to make it available because there's a need for it, we, I think we need to be able to have cost recovery, full cost recovery on it. City clerk's office. So I don't, the historic documents that need to be kept in perpetuity is one thing. If we need to refer to those documents, I'm just wondering whether or not the working part of the document can be digitized. That is, we can use that and then have the offsite ability. I think it's something just to look at. I don't, it's just throwing it out there. It may be cost prohibitive to do that, but I think it's something that should be looked at. We are looking at digitizing all the documents, but right now because we have such a critical need with the space, the heat and the humidity in that vault space has been exacerbated, and those documents really need immediate attention. And so that's why I'm urgently asking for this request because I'm afraid those are the only documents we have. Some of them are over 100 years old and we do not have copies. So this is why we need to put them in a safe place first and then digitize everything. Let me go through the items that were in the report. Emergency Operations Center, we talked about that already. I think it is a good idea to have the, an ad hoc if that's what the mayor desires to look at. What we can do at the, with the police department, with the existing space, to make it more usable. Things have changed over time. The facilities that were perhaps designed for 1-sex are not adequate for the fact that we've evolved into equality of use. And I think that's something that needs to be looked at. I think it's only fair. And I think it's something that does need to be looked at First for library agree with some of the comments that were made it is an emergency Center if we needed I think that it is something that if it is needed that we do need to look at renovating that space. Talked about the clerk's office, City Hall Tower we've spoken about. And I'm not sure what's involved in the means-tested rent subsidy program. I think it is something that we're going to need to wait on, not because it's not important, but because we have so many other priorities and we are looking at a budget shortfall. So those are my comments. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Well, I think actually went through most of these points, but I will add just a couple of other things that have been brought up. I certainly agree that we need to keep Edison's feet to the fire, but I also agree with Council Member Korman that really what we can do is limited. It's not like we have alternate sources. We can't say, oh, we'll make a deal with DWP and they'll supply. It really is, uh, goes to show how bad monopolies are and You know we can keep trying to work with the PUC and keep doing all of the things that we've been doing using public pressure And we should I also agree that when it comes to city facilities such as the parking Structures that the seismic upgrade upgrades priority over EV chargers. Though if the EV chargers also agree with the point that they should be self-financing. So, and then finally the documents in the city clerk, this is obviously extremely important. I thought struck me, maybe we could store them in the tower. You know, if we could, you know, maybe it could be that we could develop something there in the meantime that the most important documents would be safe there. Ultimately, we should have something like the Academy has a bunker where you have climate control, something along those lines for the most precious documents. But in the meantime, without doing a lot of TI's or whatever, maybe we could develop something so that they could be there until we have a more long-term solution. Clearly, the digitizing of those documents, I think, are extremely important. But not just the digitizing. I mean, we want those documents themselves to be preserved. We can maybe get advice from the National Archives and other places about the best way to store documents. Remember, they have documents that are 300 years old almost and managed to take care of them. And I'm sure we have some foundational documents that are as important to us, but also a lot of them are interesting, not only from a historical perspective, but maybe in some cases to establish title. And so really digitizing them should be a priority. I mean, I don't know if they're space that we can use in the five acres, for example, but some of those buildings seem very moldy and bad and seismically suspect. And so I'm not sure that would be the best place, but since we have upgraded, and that was the important thing, and it was the most expensive thing was to upgrade the towers so that we actually now have an elevator because we were able to seismically retrofit it. Just an idea. I certainly don't think that ultimately I agree that we shouldn't be spending money on the towers now just for fun unless we have a specific use. And clearly I don't think the ultimate use should be storage. It should be something that is more appropriate down the line when we maybe do have money. And certainly the fifth floor with the deck, that could be an area to have receptions and do that sort of thing and it could be an important part of what we do. But in the meantime, I think that's just one idea. And again, I agree with all the other points I think I made them before and in the interest of time, I will just thank everybody for their input and for their work. All right, thank you so much. All right, so I'll just try to go through these real quick. One thing that I want to point out is that the ad hoc did recommend the development of work plan items in two areas, one regarding reviewing the electrical grid maintenance and capacity and the other regarding exploring the possibility of AI to facilitate and expedite the permitting process. So those items were also recommended. I'm sure that they're already in the work plan. Or do we need a consensus on that? It would be helpful to have a consensus on that. Okay. I'm just going to do a quick. Can you repeat it? What will we do? If you go to page 3 or 4 in the report, just that top paragraph if you could read that. I just want to ensure that we're all on the same page because that is something that's very important. If I may add not just AI to facilitate the permitting process but also public records request. Right, exactly. I think just the utilization of AI. Councilmember Wells? I agree with that as well. I just want to add a comment about the Southern California Edison with regard to keeping the pressure on them. They did a presentation for public works and identified the very specific areas that need to have Action taken on their part as well as reference partnering with the city on certain things for the vault so So it isn't that we just, unless that whole presentation was lip service and which it may be, then it should be presented to us as though it is just lip service because what they presented is that they had plans and that they were very, they looked at it differently now and that there are ways that we can make improvements there. on don't know if it's a number of walls this is part of this I understand so I just wanted to add to what council member Marish and Corman said so I think we should get to the bottom of that okay you're and you're on the ad hoc yeah I mean and just we're all clear you know they've been talking about how it's our vaults that are causing the problems for a long time and it's not necessarily true. So, you know, this just goes back to what I said. You know, they can talk all they want, they can say, well, we need to do this stuff, we do that stuff and the season's got to do this stuff and the season's got to do that stuff, but it doesn't always make a lot sense. All right, so again going back to the straw poll at the top of this page. Yes Councilmember Friedman. Yes. Thank you very much. Councilmembericeray. Okay. Great. All right. So that said, what I heard was that certain areas need to be studied in the sense of the technology and we all agree that the EOC location needs to be upgraded with new equipment. I think we all heard that. With regard to plans for the police station, perhaps that's something that we could look at a little more closely to see what areas can be worked on. And when, especially with the budgetary restraints that are coming our way. I, the restrooms, I think we're all in agreement. I think all five of us have consensus on that, that they need to be addressed. As far as a nexus study, I think that that's something that we all agree with as well. re-evaluating the city clerk's office. If it's a historic document and the clerk is recommending that it needs to be preserved and that's something we need to address immediately, the only issue that I wonder about is, are there temporary storage facilities that we could utilize until we could figure out if some of these documents need to be placed on-site versus if we could find another storage location for us. And I do agree that perhaps some of the more important documents should be digitized at this stage in time, especially that we're looking at the cloud and ways to maintain and preserve some of these items, because if it's over 100 years old, obviously, it's past the two year mark of items that we need to preserve. So I'm venturing to say that we don't need immediate access to them. We do need immediate access to them because they are the ordinance books, resolutions, minutes. I'll show you. No, that's fine. Again, I think that just some clarity would be helpful so that we could best support you and the documents that need to be preserved and also see if there are temporary storage facilities until we can figure out what the best course of action is going to be for that space. I just wanted to add, there are facilities that, like law firms use all the time, where they have controlled temperature and they're secure and where those could go immediately, the ones that the documents that don't need to be accessed and even if they do, they have different rates, I believe, for if they needed to be accessed. But in the immediate, you could look at, I think it's iron. What you've used to- Mayor and mountain but it's, but it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a closure now. I think that there's something other than this. Right, I think that that's exactly the point that I'm, you know, so I think that we're going to leave that up to the city clerk to make some recommendations and then finding a temporary storage facility or something for now for to do the seismic upgrade, that's something that we need to look at. I think we're hearing consensus that the EV Chargers may not be the primary thing that that to be upgraded at this moment. But perhaps putting on paint on some of these facilities, we have some of that $10 million that we can utilize for that that's already been put aside. I think giving some new paint to some of these facades would help the business district as well as addressing some of the issues that some of the community has had. Okay, so that's all I have for now. I think you have clear direction. Is there any area that you need additional support on? I have one. Yes, let me make sure I captured it. So what I heard is we want to study the police department more. I heard suggestions about creating an ad hoc. Do we want to do that? Yes, we'll look at that. Okay. I heard support for the library for floor restrooms. I heard support for dealing in an urgent way with the documents that are in the city clerk's office. City hall tower spaces. I heard some mixed. I heard council member Wells is supportive with moving forward. Council member Corbyn said supportive but not at this time. Council member Friedman supportive but not at this time. He said the same. I think all I'm an agreement that of course we all want to see it happen and we want to see that space developed but right now with the budgetary constraints that we're seeing and also not knowing what exactly we're going to use the what are we using it for? I mean who's going to move up there on the seventh floor of this beautiful office? So I think we need to have more clarity before we move forward with any kind of thing. All right, okay, great, thank you very much. Thank you, staff. And if we can move to C4 now? Actually, I had one other comment that I didn't get. Can we just move forward with this right now? Because we- Well, I would like- It's about the priorities and I think it's important. One of the priorities where it mentions to implement the climate action plan, it's very broad and when we just approved the climate action plan we said that this is really, it's a framework. You know, some of these things are wishless items. It includes in it the complete streets and many other things. And I think it's just too broad to have as a work plan item because work plan to me is more of something that's actually getting implemented. And there are specific things that are in that climate action plan that are listed in here. But then it also says climate action plan which I just think is too broad to be in there. Because it implies that we want to move forward on a work plan for all those items that are in there. It's just a reminder that I agree that that is broad the milestones as the milestones for this year as opposed to anything else. So I assumed, and maybe I was assuming correctly, that that was the part of the climate action plan that you were looking at for this year. So why don't we do this? Why don't I work with our director of public works? And we can ensure that the milestones that are listed below are the work plan. I know the milestones we intend to achieve this year. As an example, you have work plans 7.2.2 is to implement climate action adaptation plan. But then you have 7.2.3 is the adding the chargers, which is in the climate action work plan. So it's not consistent that way. I'd like to try to get that more consistent, those items. And I do apologize mayor. Do we have any comments on the commission work plan items? If we do, should we bring those to the next council meeting? I think we should bring those to the next council meeting if there are any. I looked them over, they look fine, they're, they look to be consistent, but I'd like to give my colleagues a time to review that and we could bring it to the next study session. Very good. It's here. Would you like to read more? No, no, no, just study sessions. study session. We're good. It's here. Would you like to leave a comment? No, no, no. Just study sessions. Next study session. Okay. Great. Thank you. Now, before we go to closed session, did you have a report on C4? I'm going to call forward, Mandi-Jang, Senior Management Analyst, just to provide a clarification on this item. Thank you for this opportunity to provide clarification on this item. I just want to note that there was a discrepancy in the published attachment one with my staff report. The bills mentioned, excuse me, in my staff report, we're not accurately reflected on their positions in the bill matrix. So the bill matrix shows those bills as a watch position but we have since taken as in the staff report a position of either oppose or support. So to remedy this, hard copies of the corrected bill matrix has been provided to City Council and hard copies have been placed outside the chamber. Great. Thank you very much. This concludes our study session. We will now take roll for the city council closed session. Thank you. Clerk please call the roll. Thank you. This is for the city council closed session. Council member Wells here. Council member Cormin. Council member Friedman. Vice Mayor Mirish, and Mayor Nazarian. Yes, here. And there are no public comments for a closed session. Okay, well thank you. Now we will move to a closed session for items listed on the agenda. Please be advised that the formal session of this evening will take place at 7 p.m. tonight. There it is. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Looks really good on the cat lock and not so good in self defense. So make sure your feet stay on the hip of the park. More and that will start getting into some actual self defense. So forward and back on my count if you want to do it as ready forward. Go back, go forward, go back and back. Now try and travel a tiny bit farther. Don't jump just if you were going one inch forward and I'll make it too. So ready forward, go ahead and both feet should move. Yes, it back. Good. Forward. Good and back. Excellent. Alright. I'm in that fighting stance. I'm going to do palm. I'll make it to so ready forward good and both feet should move yes and back good forward Good and back excellent all right. I'm in that fighting stance. I'm gonna do palm heel strikes my fingers flex back. I use the heel of my palm That's it in your fighting so they're ready with your forward hand. That's your left hand for most of you With your forward hand, I'm going to send that hand out, flex your fingers back and imagine touching with the heel of your palm. Ready? Go. Go. Go. And again, go. Go. Go. Go. Now watch. As that hand goes out, think about that shoulder turning forward. Think about that hip being active. The power comes from your leg. So, whoa, feel it from here. On my count. Ready? Go! Go! Great. Go! Rearhand. It's the same thing, but that rear leg is farther back. That rear hip is farther back. You can turn even more. So when I say go, your rear hand now, everything turns forward ready and go! Go! You can turn even more. So when I say go, you're rearhand now. Everything turns forward ready and go. Go. Go.