Consider Directing Staff to Address Zoning and General Plan Alignment with City Charter Article 26 as Part of the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Agenda Item.  (Vice Mayor Knox White)
All right. Any other hearty souls out there waiting to talk? No. They're not. So let me close out communications of nine agenda items and we move on to council referrals. We have one click. And it is. Considered directing staff to address zoning and general plan alignment with City Charter. Article 26 is part of the discussion in the Bay Area Government's regional housing needs allocation agenda. All right, Vice Mayor, this is your council referral. So the floor is yours. Thank you. So I brought this forward after our last meeting, based on the fact that I know we're going to have a conversation coming up very likely at the beginning of December about what is the methodology for our arena allocations. And I know that there, as I noted at that time, and we heard from some folks, there's also an interest in just kind of discussing both how we move forward after measures after after our community strongly supported retaining Article 26 and how that may or may not affect our arena allocation, our ability to meet that at the end of the day. We know that state law and our city charter are now out of compliance. And so there are probably multiple ways in which we could move forward as a council. And I think that given that we are still within the arena comment, comment period and whatnot, I wanted to see I wanted to ask my colleagues to give direction to bring forth as a part of that conversation on December a December 1st. Staff could bring forward some options on how we could give direction for the New Year and the new Council for it to join some of the what I believe is going to be a possibly a series of conversations that we'll have, but just really allow the community and our council to give some input on how they'd like to see that conversation unfold, what those options might be and direction on that. For me, I identified four areas that I think we should look at again returning. I called it a special meeting at the time, but it could be December 1st. I didn't I sorry, I forgot to delete that after our conversation on the first. But you know what steps need to be taken for compliance because at some point in time we're going to have to make it a decision to either comply with our charter or comply with with renewed requirements. And I think there's some interesting conversations there. I think we should identify what communications are necessary with our regional and state partners to talk about what compliance means so that we can really have a conversation with the community about what these trade offs mean. Identify any of the community impacts related to complying with the with the recent measures, the vote. And lastly, you know, I really want us to consider when it comes back actually voting to allow us to have the legal conversation outside in the public and open in open session. Whereas typically I would not would not choose to do that. I think when we're talking about kind of general overall land use law, it's really important for our community to understand the tradeoffs we are making and why we're making them. And at the end of the day, I don't think we're getting into legal strategy so much as to how to beat an opponent, so much as really making sure that I think it's going to be really important for our community to come along with us so that we're not having many closed session discussions about land use strategy and then trying to have those conversations in the open. And I think for me at least, my belief is that it is probably the legal risk is probably significantly less on something like this than it would be, say, on a on a Friday in a specific developer. On specific. Yeah, the boat works. I would not agree to that. So anyway, I wanted to just ask us to give some direction so that we can have this conversation. And I don't have specific recommendations so much as just bring back some things for, for, for us to consider and start giving some direction as we move forward . Thank you. Best man. Let's wait. Council, have your thoughts. We do have one speaker. Oh, I'm sorry. I did. I guess I didn't ask you that. So. Okay, let's get clarifying questions. Can we hold our comments, people? The comments. Okay. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Now have a second. Speaker two But the first one is Zach Bowling. All right. Good evening, Mr. Bowling. You'd be. Sorry. Swishing around. It's been a long meeting. Yeah, telling me. Yeah. I'll keep this brief. I just wanted to say. I wanted to voice my support for option two and bringing back instructions from staff as soon as possible in December for the next meeting. And I think it's important to note that the citizens affirmed their wish to keep Article 26. And given that, I think it's important for council to discuss how we move forward. Like John was saying, given that we have to follow Article 26 and how we're going to manage to to meet our air bag arena requirements and how we're going to certify our housing element. I think it's important that we have this discussions, and I agree that having the legal discussion sort of be public is important. I know it's a little, little different in this case, but I don't think it's because somebody's suing us. It's just so that we can understand sort of our requirements, and that's important. So having staff come back to explain to us the things that had John had put into the item, I think it's important or vice versa, I should say. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Internet Speaker. Our next speaker is Adam Busch, founder. In the evening. Mr. Bush BINDER. Hi, that's a that's a book. Binder. I was just going to say what I saw on the screen. No worries. Everybody. All right? Yes. Hi, I'm I'm Adam Bookbinder. I'm a planning commissioner in the city of Campbell in the South Bay. So I'm speaking here only for myself. I'd like to echo what Zach said and urge the Council to choose option to instruct staff to return with their report in December. Speaking from my own perspective, every jurisdiction in the state, certainly every jurisdiction in the Bay Area has ambitious targets to meet. Every jurisdiction says that they're fully built out. These restrictions are as artificial as Article 26, and in the wake of businesses failure, the city has to determine how it's going to meet its rent goals. In this environment, our housing crisis or affordability crisis or homelessness crisis all very real. I urge the Council to face this issue head on and aggressively schedule staff to report back as soon as possible so we can figure out how on earth we're going to comply with Rena. And. Well, maybe you should stick to your own city. You know who. Who wants you? Excuse me. Council member Gifford. Oh, hold it, hold it, hold it. We have public comment. This gentleman has a First Amendment right to address this for 3 minutes. Please. You are entitled to your comments, but you will do it when we have council discussion. Okay. As I said more than once, we're not running a presidential debate. This is a city council. We don't interrupt each other. Mr. Bookbinder, if you can remember where you were, please pick up where you. Sure, I can. I can actually answer that question. I there's two reasons I decided to get involved here. One, as as the housing crisis is a regional issue, this affects me and this affects people I care about. This affects friends that I have in Alameda who would be here at public comment if this had taken place 3 hours as opposed to four and a half hours into this. You should have some letters in your inbox because I talked to friends I have in Alameda, people I care about who can hardly afford their rent because of the housing crisis here. That's why I'm involved. And I would absolutely welcome it. If you want to show up at a meeting in Campbell and share information that you have. The housing crisis affects us just as it affects you. And no one city can solve this all on our own. I. I promise. I do not think that everybody should go live in Alameda and nobody should living in Carmel. I think that we really have to coordinate together and it's sad that we have to get we have to essentially be forced by the state via the creative process to do what's right. And it's especially sad. The state has been trying to do this since. I believe it. At least 40 years and they have to add all sorts of teeth to the law. To make this actually happen. I wish didn't come to this. I wish that we didn't have to be hostile with each other. But I honestly want the best for my friends, for my city, for the people I care about, for the region. That's why I'm I'm advocating for this. Thank you for your time. I yield the balance. Thank you, Mr. Bookbinder. And I understand we have another speaker here. Yes, we actually have two more now. Herman Reid is next. Oh, right. Oh, no, not misread. Good evening again. It's nice to be here. And I thank you again that a mayor and city council members. I truly appreciate you being up so late and taking comments. I would just like to mention that I, I think it's important to note the responsibility of, of the city council to please uphold the will of the voters with regards to two measures. And one possibility would be to join our Tri-County neighbors on proposing a reduction in our arena allocation, especially considering that Alameda is an island and our geography should be taken into account and and appropriately and be proportionate to our limited egress and ingress. So thank you very much. And and please take this into consideration when when discussion when discussing how to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Reid. And our next speakers. Doug Letterman. Hello, Mr. Letterman. I thank you, Mayor. Councilmembers. I'll keep this very brief. I wanted to thank Vice Mayor John Max White for bringing this onto the agenda this evening. And I'll echo one of the other speakers. I think the council should choose option to. I think this is an urgent matter. The was a decisive vote. But I think it's unclear what it means for the city. And I think it's important not to discuss these issues. Because could we pause the timer for one minute? Councilor Birthday said You might want to mute yourself and then you could make whatever editorial comment you'd like to make that we don't interrupt speakers and I won't let people interrupt you either. All right. I'm pleased to present the clock. And Mr. Letterman, I'm sorry for the interruption. Please. Please. That's perfectly fine. That's that's all I wanted to say, is that. Thank you for discussing this. And I support option two. Thank you. All right. And then for digital tell, we have more speakers after this. That was the final speaker. Thank you. The final speaker. All right. Councilmember de Search. I call on you first. This is your time to end it. Sorry. I think. I'll just be brief. I think on November 3rd, the people of Alameda clearly said in no uncertain terms that they want to keep growth control measures like Measure eight, Article 26. They said that in no uncertain terms. But what that also means is that we're keeping measure A in the way that we're doing it right now. Measure A is in our it's embedded in our zoning. Right this every moment we live with Measure A and we live with two other things that in certain circumstances override it. The density bonus, the state density bonus law or the state housing overlay. So, you know, those things coexist. The idea that we can't build housing with measure a, the idea that we can't meet our regional housing needs, you know, to an electorate by planning commissioner from from the city of Campbell, from the heart of Silicon Valley, which is causing the housing crisis on all of the Bay Area. When Silicon Valley catches a cold, sneezes, the whole of Bay Area catches a cold. The idea that we're going to get lectured by someone from the Planning Commission of of the city of Campbell, that we're not good residents, especially in the aftermath of a vote in which the outcome was quite decisive. If you're going to follow through on all this, you're basically undoing the vote of November 3rd. And that is not the role of planning staff. It's not the role of city council to undo the outcome. We should just move along as we are right now, where we're working within the parameters of measure. Right now they're in our or at zoning and in as important. We're also meeting state housing law with regard to, you know, Bolton building multifamily housing. We're doing it through the density bonus. We're doing it through the multi-family housing overlay. That's why our our housing element was certified. Granted, there will be a new arena number, whether it's 4900 or whether it's 3200. At this point, the housing element is still certified. It will be up to us to figure out how to meet the 3200 number or the 4900 number. And we all believe that the no on Z vote. Indicates that the city council should be going for the lesser of the two choices. But whatever the number is, it will be upon the City Council to figure out how to meet the the arena numbers within the parameters that we have right now, which is measure eight as as instituted in our in our zoning ordinance. It's there already. And also working with the the density bonus as well as the state housing overlay. They coexist. And the vote of November 3rd was for for the residents to move forward and the status quo that we had. We have what they did not want, though, was to undo it, to unwind, remove, eliminate the growth control tool of Measure eight. That's what November 3rd was all about. And it was so overwhelmingly clear that people recognize that we're an island with limited constraints and we need such a tool like Article 26. Thank you. Thank you. Cancer every day, side by side. That's why they sell your hand. Thank you. I just wanted to. Yeah, I hear in Councilmember de SACS comments, maybe a misunderstanding of what I'm proposing, because I'm not proposing. I agree with everything you just said, Tony. 100%. There is no such thing as a state housing overlay. That was something that the city of Alameda just made up and did. There was a. No. That's not true. That's not true. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Oh, sorry, sorry. Council member is you. You still have time left. I will call on you, please. I know this is fairly emotionally charged. I get it. But we've got to get this done before midnight. So thank. You both. I'm not looking to argue tonight. I'm just saying that what we're doing states, I guess just we should have a conversation about how we're going to move forward. Is it is it the use of overlays? You know, can we do that? If we don't use overlays, how many housing units can be accommodated? Which should we use that to talk to abeg about what you're proposing, which is looking for a different a different in lower number. So that's the conversation I'm looking for. This is not some let's have a conversation in December to overthrow a measure, throw overthrow the vote of the voters. I heard the voters very loudly. 40% voted yes and 59.87% said said no. 60. That is a decisive decision. And and I expect to honor that, you know, personally. And I will say it's going to be very difficult for me, to your point, to do things that just ignore that vote. So I'm not bringing this forward in any way. I hear that you think that this is a this is some sort of ability to ignore the vote. I'm actually bringing this forward to say I believe we need to honor that vote and what does that look like? And we need to start having that conversation now while we can have conversations with a bang before things are settled so that we know where we stand by the end of that process. So that was all I want to clarify. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Vela. So your hand up, your next. So a few points, Madam Mayor. First is we have a code of conduct which we all voted on and agreed to. And I just think that we need to honor that code of conduct. And that includes the respect that we give constituents and people that call in to public comment and how we conduct ourselves at this meeting , not speaking over each other. And so I feel it's very important to raise that point. Especially because on this item alone, I think there were three opportunities to perhaps abide by that code of conduct better. And it does not, in my opinion, reflect the values exhibited in our code of conduct or what we want to convey to the public. Because I personally want to welcome public comment and public discourse, I think that there's a way that we can do it that is not abrasive or still taking input from others, even those that we disagree with. So I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge what I'm hearing. The number and the voting outcome is public. It's public record. We can we can view that. And I think that there's a lot of misinformation. And I say that because I'm listening to some of the speakers that have called in tonight and at our last meeting. And and to me, yes, I think that the vote and the vote outcome was, quote unquote, decisive. But I think that there was a lot of misinformation and a lot of misunderstanding. So I do understand where the vice mayor is coming from in terms of clearing the air and addressing how how do we move forward? What does this mean? What do these limitations rule? That said, going back to our code of conduct and as somebody who has faced a number of challenges and complaints and been accused of many things, I take very seriously our fiduciary obligation as council members. So I do think that there will be a time to have that public conversation. But I think one of the things that's been very difficult has been that we haven't been able to have a conversation as a council with our executive staff, including the city attorney, to talk about kind of not not specific legal strategy, but the pros and cons moving forward from a fiduciary standpoint. And I would like to have that conversation. I understand the vice mayor wanting to bring this forward. What I'm hearing is trying to get together a timeline of how we can actually have these conversations. I'm certainly open to to that. I would like to at least what I would like to see is, is that this actually get agenda raised first on closed session for us to hear specifically from the city attorney. I know some of us have probably had more in-depth conversations than others, but I think that there is a value in having that closed session conversation where we can speak openly and honestly, ask our questions and concerns and get them on the record. What I'm very concerned about isn't necessarily a lawsuit per se from a specific developer. It's from some of our own constituents, some of the people that worked on that. For instance, even on the No on Z campaign that have named all of us individually and are in various lawsuits over the years, and that does come at a cost to the city. And it means resources from a staff level, and it means that we pay outside attorneys. It means that we have staff spend endless hours going back and forth on these lawsuits when we should be moving forward in a proactive way, which is way I think the vice mayor is. His goal is and I certainly stand by that. And I do think that there needs to be kind of an airing of what does this mean for the city, how do we do these things? And so what I would what I would like is to have a closed session. I'm not asking to delay this very long. I do think it's a conversation that we need to have fairly soon. I'd like to have the presentation from a bag and then I think having this publicly agenda raised would be helpful either at that same meeting or at the next meeting. That would be something I would be open to because I do think that there's a valid point of clarifying What does this mean? What does this vote mean? How do these things interact? The last thing I want to say is it's really insulting to refer to Alameda as the island city because it ignores a whole portion of our city that exists that is not on the island. And I think it's very exclusionary of a vast majority of our population that live in Bay Farm. The Harbor Bay Farm community deserves to be recognized as part of the city of Alameda. They're on a peninsula. It actually used to be an island, but it became a peninsula when the island of Alameda, which was a peninsula, became an island. And so I think it's important to understand our history and to not just jump to but we an island. Because in reality, we have an island as. Part of our city. But we as a city are not just an island. I mean, I think it's important to recognize all of the people that make up our population. So I would just you know, I hear what people are saying relative to that, but that's only a portion of our city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate my colleagues comments. I just do want to reiterate what Councilmember Abella just talked about. I mean, we we had a comment earlier in the meeting, remind us of our code of conduct. And it's pretty clear there that we all agreed and I assume we all signed, that we're going to agree to be welcoming to speakers and treat them with care and gentleness and not interrupt our colleagues when they're in the middle of of making a point. So, I mean, one time, okay. Two times, three times. I think it's something that the mayor needs to take up in in conjunction with the process outlined in the code of conduct. And you can you can read the quote that's after that rule of somebody that said, the way the council treats people during public hearings can do a lot to make them relax or to push their emotions to a higher level of intensity. So, I mean, this was something that the grand jury asked us to do. And I think that the person that violated it was very insistent on following through with the grand jury. And, you know, the irony that it was violated three times tonight is not lost on me. So I want to say that I appreciate the customer of the suggestion. You know, I think it's possible to combine a closed session where we actually hear some of the legal risks and then perhaps vote on waiving our privilege on that advice. And then whatever we wait privilege on can be presented in the following open session right after that. You know, I was one of the people earlier in the year that said it's time to call the question on Measure Z. Measure A, you know, I. Advocated for Measure Z. I put it on every piece of mail and and document that I put out in the campaign. And yet we lost. And it wasn't like a narrow loss. It was a convincing loss. And that's not lost on me that, you know, 3/5 of our voters basically said, this is in our charter and we want to keep it in our charter. So I think it's imperative that we take a look at what that means for us as far as going forward with our housing element and going forward with ordinances that we have passed that conflict with our charter, because there's always a talk in these meetings by some that the charter is the constitution of the city of Alameda and there's the Constitution of the United States of America. And if somebody passes a law that's in conflict with that constitution, then it can be held unconstitutional. Right. Yet we have passed laws and not this particular council, but other councils have passed laws, whether it be, you know, overlays and such that kind of get around measure a well, the public is basically told us we want to keep measure and it wasn't 5149, it wasn't 5545, it was basically 6040. So when these these ordinances were passed, we didn't have that reaffirmation from our electorate that this is something they wanted to do. And it wasn't a low turnout election. It wasn't a 12,000 vote special election. It was a 45,000 vote universal suffrage type of vote. So to me, it's pretty clear that the message that we're getting loud and clear is we want to have a ban on multi-family housing in Alameda and we want to have density limits that are in 26th Street. So we can't just ignore that. You know, whether we agree with them or not, we can't just ignore them. We have to learn how to deal with them. We have another just with them and we have to look and see if there's anything that we're doing that's in conflict with this charter provision. And if it is, you know, to me it's, you know, unconstitutional or uncharitable or whatever the the phrase you want to you want to call. So I appreciate the vice mayor for bringing this up. You know, I feel duly chastised for my advocacy of of something different. But, you know, I was on the wrong side. So when you're on the wrong side, you got to accept it. You know, I know Trump isn't doing that, but, you know, that's just the way it is. So I'm fully supportive of number two and with the caveat of Councilmember Avella suggestion that we had a closed session. So we can decide at that closed session what privilege we want to waive. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. Okay, so I have a few things to say with regard to the code of conduct. It does apply to all of us. And we did hear a speaker at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Paul Foreman, go into detail about how he felt, about comments that were made to him. And I and I will go back and listen to that. That portion of the reference meeting. And I just want to remind all of us that we do our best work when we listen to each other. We are we all are people of strong views and we're passionate about what we do. And that's a good thing. But we we need to listen to everyone, even people we don't agree with sometimes, especially people we don't agree with, because we can we can spend too much time in an echo chamber and not realize that there are other views out there. And and I've done a lot of soul searching about Measure Z myself, having co-chaired the campaign with the vice mayor. And, you know, I think and then the theme of communication came up when we were discussing the Oakland Alameda Access Project, and that is to say crossing bridge. And there was a lot of just misinformation and miscommunication that was swirling. So we are elected leaders. We represent our city, and we always want to make our city proud that we are the leaders. So regardless of how you feel about what someone is saying, we we strive to treat people the way we would want to be treated. And and and yet I'm the first one to acknowledge that it's tough. You know, we're not we're not robots. We have feelings. We get frustrated. And it's tough to keep those emotions in check sometimes, but we need to continually work toward it. And and I think, you know, reach out and and acknowledge and maybe have a conversation with someone who might have felt wrong by something you said or did. The other thing is very interesting discussion. And yes, I am bringing forward we will have a presentation on the reading methodology for determining our allocation of housing numbers. And this process is working its way through ABEG. And as we speak, I get a little nervous as an attorney when I hear that we should just waives the attorney client privilege and discuss legal things out in the open. So I would never want to have that discussion without asking our city attorney's input or opinion on it. And I would just say, from my perspective, I think it can be a slippery slope that, yes, we say we we waived this privilege this time, but then what about the next time? And who gets to decide that? City Attorney Mr. Evenson. May I call upon you to just share and share your thoughts? Impart some wisdom to us which should please this. Thank you. Also, I'm happy to share what. We plan on doing and having shared process as what we are planning to do is to prepare a confidential memo outlining the various legal implications to the counsel, and we expect to provide that to the counsel this month. And so the counsel will have it in advance of any future council meetings. The counsel can digest it and consider whether any portion of, for example, any portion of the memo it would like to waive and and be. Shown to the public. That's certainly the council's. Call where we're here to provide legal advice to the counsel. And if. There's any provision in any part of the memo, it will be at least. Concrete. And the counsel can look at it and decide what is appropriate. And to the extent the counsel would like to have. A closed session, I'm happy to talk about that with the counsel. We, as you know, the states, as we probably would agenda as it is anticipated litigation, the city's initiation of litigation. And we probably will need a little more factual development before we bring it to you. So we we will not be expecting to bring that to you in December. We may bring it to you in the coming year after you've had the opportunity to digest our memo. And maybe here Planning Director Thomas's background presentation to you in December and when you have a little more information so that the Council can make an informed decision. I've got to answer your question. I'm happy to answer anything specific. Now that that is very helpful. And thank you for that. And Councilor, we're going to have to act quickly because we only have 3 minutes before we have to adjourn according to our vote. So I would I would like to see is that this is the sequence. I would suggest just my suggestion coming forward to us in the first meeting in December, the presentation by a bank staff on recent allocations sometime in the near future. Getting that memo from city attorney on his legal opinion about these matters deciding it's a little unclear to me how the council would go about deciding whether to vote or whether whether we want to release all or part of that. That can be determined. But then to get a closed session scheduled for, I think as soon as the city attorney feels like he would reasonably have the opportunity to get whatever facts together he needs. So we hear this item first in closed session, which I think is what Councilmember Vela was suggesting. But Vice Mayor and that's why I'm going to hand the floor to you, because you this is your this your item. Oh, well, you know, I'm I'm happy to to join my colleagues in moving whatnot forward. I would be a little concerned. We believe now that the methodology has been approved, add a bag and whatever else. We have a six month comment window that ends in June. And I would want to I do believe that we have heard from a not insignificant portion of our community, not necessarily the same portion that voted no on Z, but but that they have questions and interests in that in looking at the arena allocation and having conversations about that. And I would like to make sure that whatever process happens that maybe in January we are able to start having kind of the conversations about how to move forward. So again, I personally, you know, I would like to I would love to start and I think it would be good for our community because, you know, to the conversation I had with Councilmember de Song, I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about intention and what we're doing and whatnot. So I think the quicker we start, you know, kind of just talking through these things, I think that people will calm down a little bit and feel more comfortable again. So that was not a comment about Councilmember Sang. I just meant in the community, people are, I think, feeling tense. You know, I think Councilmember Odie has a lot of a lot of history here and could or just participate in that. And, you know, I would also recommend that we create space for the incoming councilmember as well to have conversation in that as well in December. That would be my recommendation is making sure that that space is okay. Councilmember Day So. I just want to say quickly that I was the campaign manager and what that meant was I wrote the political mail, I wrote the first draft of this. It is now midnight. We voted to go to midnight. I believe we've had recommendations to the staff for moving forward. That fair assumption. Is, I don't know. Is there is there a motion? We yes, we had a motion so until midnight. Okay. So what does that mean? It means we've had staff direction. I think the vice mayor laid out a pretty solid path. Okay. Staff, do you feel you have enough direction, Mr. Thomas, position moving forward? I'm seeing a nod from Mr. Sharon. A thumbs up. Okay. All right. Council member Odie. Can we move to extend the meeting another 5 minutes to kind of wrap this? And just this item. I'm happy to defer my ten A to the next meeting. Because you know my policy about. Ending. I understand that would. Be good that I'll move that we extend the meeting 5 minutes. That can. Okay. It's 5 minutes starting the minute the vote is taken and I'm timing correctly. Okay. Really? And it's been moved by. I'm sorry. It wasn't looking up, was it, early next week? Yeah. Yeah. In fact, it it in that order and maybe have a roll cover, please. Councilmember de SAC i naxalite ody i. Vela i. Mayor as the Ashcraft. High. That carries by five eyes. So. Fucking continuous as possible. Yeah. I'm going to start the timer. Just. Man, I missed you just one minute to try to find you. Talk to one minute, because then we get our 5 minutes. Yeah. Okay. Ready? Three days to. Go. So I was the campaign manager. I wrote the political mail. I wrote it, I designed it. I earned or acted with John Diaz, with the Chronicle. I ran, interacted with Dan Borenstein of East Bay Times, with J.K. Deneen, the staff writer of Chronicle as well as the radio station Cale LW. And even when you look back at the discussion with the Harbor Bay Isle folks at all points in time, the message was never, we don't want to build multi-family housing. The message was simply, we want to keep Article 26 and we recognize that we are building multifamily housing. Look at our political mail, our political mail. Show the multifamily housing that we're building. So we understood that the density bonus and the housing overlay were a fact of life that we have to live with. However, we're at it scenes with the fact that we've got Article 26 embedded in the environment. Thank you. Councilmember Councilor Odie, were you I think maybe you were speaking. Here, I mean. It says what it says. I mean, it says we're not allowed to build multi-family housing. And we're looking for direction moving. What I would like to make a motion to adopt moving forward with item alternative two of the referral and direct staff to have it come back at the December 1st meeting. Because I mean, I would like to have some part of the discussion before before leaving. Knowing that it's not going to be an end all, be all. So that discussion could take place in the under the. The item on the reading methodology. It's fine with the refer. We should refer. Yes. Okay. Is that all right? That's all. Yeah. That was my intent, was to have them together. So we're not having two separate conversations. That is happening on December 1st. Okay. Correct. Anything further in the 3 minutes we have left? Okay. Mr. Chan. I just want to confirm. That the direction is not for us to bring a closed session item on December 1st. It's only to have open session. Conversations combined with Mr. Thomas's staff report. Correct? Correct. And then we're going to see a legal memo from you at some point in the future. Correct? Yes. That's right. And that open session conversation will not be waiving any privilege. Absolutely. To clarify. Absolutely see how it can based on this discussion. Okay. So with 2 minutes left, so we had a motion by Councilmember OTI and I think it's been clarified that this is going to be discussed in the December to December 1st. Yes. The first is that remedy is. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. Sticking with the theme, I'll second that motion. All right. Here we go. The dynamic duo. Okay. We've had a motion. It's been seconded by the usual suspects. May we have a roll call vote, please? Remember de. Thug? No. Not quite. All right. Odie, I avella I may or as the Ashcraft High that carries 4 to 1. All right. Thank you, everyone. There's a minute and 36 seconds left, but I think I should probably just tell you a thank you. A lot of good topics, tough topics were discussed tonight and so continuing. Thanks for all your good work and please just be extra careful when you're out and about. Remember your your masks and all the things we need to do to protect ourselves and others from COVID 19. Okay. Take care. Stay safe. Thank you, Staff. Awesome work as usual. And I see you with the owls. And good. Night. Thanks.