WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
READ INTO THE RECORD
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: SS Item A-1, Lawn Signs
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 6:48:21 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
As I mentioned at the Ad Hoc committee meeting, the existing lawn sign regulations have no teeth to prevent candidates and their agents from fraudulently posting their signs in front of properties, without authorization, and in doing so, misrepresenting that they are endorsed by the property or business owner.
In the last election there were many Bosse lawn signs and many more Gold signs, placed on properties without authorization or knowledge of the property owners.
When such deceptive actions are taken, it causes residents to lose respect and trust in the candidates, and rightfully so.
Please consider developing some enforceable rules with ramifications for the unauthorized placement of lawn signs.
Thank you.
Darian Bojeaux
Honorable Mayor Robert Wunderlich, Honorable Vice Mayor Lili Bosse and Council Members Gold, Friedman and Mirisch:
This letter relates to Item A-3 on the Agenda for the January 4, 2022 Study Session regarding an update to campaign disclosure regulations.
Under current Beverly Hills Ordinances, committees that are formed to support ballot measures such as initiatives or referenda are required to disclose in their advertisements who are “Top Contributors” defined as those who have contributed $10,000 or more.
The City Attorney has proposed to update and amend existing requirements to extend to any committee for all local elections including city council and treasurer elections with the limited exceptions of political party committees and candidate-controlled committees (which are already limited to maximum $450 contributions), among other changes.
We support the proposed amendments and urge that they be enacted with some additional changes that we believe will further the goals of transparency and full disclosure of campaign contributors.
Specifically, we suggest that the definition of “Top Contributors” to those who have contributed $1,000 or more.
Further, in the event that the Contributor is an entity other than a natural person, such as a corporation, partnership or limited liability company, that the principal person or persons who control such entities also be disclosed.
If the trigger for disclosures of supporters in advertisements is as high as $10,000 as currently proposed, a handful of contributors could fund a committee with donations of $9,999.99 that would greatly exceed the $80,000 expenditure limits that all or most candidates will likely agree to. While the identity of such contributors would be subject to disclosure requirement laws, only those who expend the efforts to obtain access to those disclosures. And even then, the contributions are often made by entities that are not natural persons whose identity will not be apparent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Gay Abrams
Harry Abrams
Jodi Cohn
Jane Davis, M.D.
Dan Demeter
Myra Demeter, Ph.D.
Erica Felsenthal
Eliot Finkel
Lori Greene Gordon
Andrea Grossman
Rick Grossman
Adi Hacker
Isabel Hacker
Matt Hankin
Lou Ignarro, Ph. D.
Sharon Ignarro, M.D.
Lori Levi
Michael Levi
Michael Lloyd II
Susan Mishler
Wendy Nystrom
Anne Young Ostroff
Peter Ostroff
Jessica Pynoos
Jon Pynoos
Herb Reston
Ronald Richards
Elyse Salend
Thomas Schulhof
Gina Seidel
Fern Seizer
Elliot Shirwo
Ed Sigall, M.D.
Howard Soloway
Trinka Soloway
Mel Spitz
Helen Sztrigler Weston
Richard Weston
Andrew Wolk
Herb Young
Hannah Zackson, M.D.
From: Hammond Entertainment
Sent: Oct 8, 2021 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item #2 - Urban Forest Plan Would you please add this to the record:
The bird population is a critically important component to our urban forest and the overall urban ecosystem. Although it may be anecdotal -- given that I am not a trained ornithologist -- but it is difficult to ignore the increasingly declining avian population of Beverly Hills. I hope this will be taken into consideration when contemplating the new Urban Forest Plan.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Hammond
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
From: Mary Campbell
To: City Clerk
Subject: Minimum Grid Network-City Council Study Session, January 4, 2022, item SS-C7 Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:35:11 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Sirs or Madames:
I am a 42 year resident and homeowner of Beverly Hills and have been an active cyclist and responsible citizen. I fully support the installation of the minimum grid network. It is a good first step to a network that could be expanded upon in the future, it would help bicyclists navigate more appropriate routes and it would remind drivers that bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on public streets. We must continue to improve the quality of our life in our beautiful and unique City and think progressively for the health of our future community.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Campbell
From: Jim Friedberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support for Cycling Infrastructure - 1/4/2021 City Council Study Session Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 8:24:46 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Councilmembers,
I am a resident of Beverly Hills and support expanding cycling infrastructure in Beverly Hills and support the “Minimum Grid” that the Traffic Commission recommends. As the Traffic Commission stated: “installation of the minimum grid network is a good first step to a network that could be expanded upon in the future, it would help bicyclists navigate more appropriate routes and it would remind drivers that bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on public streets.” Jim Friedberg
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: Minimum Grid Proposal
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:04:27 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
I am writing in support of today’s City Council Study Session, January 4th at 2:30, item SS-C7. As a local Beverly Hills resident, I am greatly in support of expanding the cycling infrastructure in Beverly Hills, and I support the minimum grid.
Thank you,
Gregory Heller
From: Carlton Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: Support for the "Minimum Grid"
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:27:29 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Re: City Council Study Session, January 4, 2022 at 2:30 P.M., item SS-C7 Dear Sirs or Madames:
I have been a resident of Beverly Hills since 1981 and a homeowner in Beverly Hills since 1983. I fully support the installation of the minimum grid network as it would be a good first step to a network that could be expanded upon in the future. It would help bicyclists navigate more appropriate routes and it would remind drivers that bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on public streets. I truly hope that this will be a first step to protected bicycle lanes and a significant improvement in our City’s environment and lifestyle.
Sincerely,
Carlton Y.S. Lee, M.D.
From: Thomas A. White
To: City Clerk
Cc: Lourdes Sy-Rodriguez
Subject: Today"s City Council Study Session at 2:30 p.m. Agenda Item C-7 Proposed Minimum Grid Bicycle Markings Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:59:53 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
TO BE READ ALOUD.
The Council should discourage staff and City Commissions from their efforts to incrementally advance city-wide bicycle-centric reconfiguration objectives, which it knows, or should know, are misguided and unsupported by the vast majority of residents, and will prove disruptive, wasteful and ultimately unsustainable.
1. Imprinting roadway surfaces with large bicycle markings creates the impression that motor vehicle use of such lanes is unwanted, disfavored, discouraged, improper or even impermissible. This inappropriate proprietary branding encourages uncertainty that motor vehicle drivers who use such lanes may be subjecting themselves to being stopped by law enforcement and possibly receive a moving vehicle citation which requires a court appearance, payment of a fine, driving school or some other form of time loss, inconvenience or undesirable driving point record affecting insurance eligibility and rates. If motorists avoid bicycle branded lanes, traffic circulation, congestion and drive time delays will be further exacerbated.
2. If indeed all public roadways are a shared resources for all vehicles, as bicycle proponents argue, how then can specific bicycle only branding even be proper, especially when its sole presence is impliedly exclusionary?
3. The street routes to city landmarks and other destinations are the same for every mode of travel. Why then must our landscape be further littered by the erection of new unnecessary wayfinder signage designated as somehow specific to bicycles? It should be obvious that such signage is superfluous, adds clutter, and proposes an avoidable expense of public tax dollars for no public benefit.
Thomas White
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: C8 Mixed Use
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 1:19:54 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Please read this comment at tomorrow’s study session. Thanks.
Four out of five of you voted to pass the mixed use ordinance, after two of you pretended that you were underdecided on it, and two of you concealed your intentions to rezone the city when you were running for reelection.
In passing the mixed use ordinance, you turned control of our development over to the state. Although I advised two of you that the state density bonus program was scheduled to increase from 35% to 50%, and all of you were advised of that by staff also when the ordinance was being considered, when the density bonus was raised and it was mentioned at a meeting, you played dumb like you didn’t know it was coming. And now we must all worry that tall, dense, under parked develops will be built and ruin our city, and that the state may further raise the density bonus.
Your claim was that we need to “revitalize" the city. Those of us who have good taste and good values, and understand why our city is admired, feel that the city is lovely as it is, and that your actions are simply aimed at ruining our city in the areas where you do not live.
Further, your actions were taken during the pandemic to not only attempt to deprive residents of our lovely environment, but also to deprive residents of their Constitutional referendum rights. You also illegally accomplished your mission at a study session, instead of a formal evening meeting, to try to keep your wrongheaded actions under the radar.
Kudos to John Mirisch for being the only council member to reject the extensive, unnecessary mixed use ordinance.
We need more city council member like him. I do not give the rest of you enough credit to think that you might repeal what you should have never passed.
Darian Bojeaux
Beverly Hills Resident
From: mbonert
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed use ordinance
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 3:14:42 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To whom it may concern,
The mixed use ordinance is a terrible odea for Beverly Hills residents. The result will be in taller buildings, and will worsen the already present shortage of parking, and increase the uncontrolled traffic in the city. I am not in support of this ordinance.
Michael Bonert
Sent from my Galaxy
From:
To: City Clerk
Subject: mixed use ordinance
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 12:44:58 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To whom it may concern,
The mixed use ordinance will result in taller buildings, and will worsen the already present shortage of parking, and increase the traffic in the city. I am not in support of this ordinance Vivien Bonert
From: Sharon Dohm
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed-use ordinance
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:36:26 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the Beverly Hills City Council:
Please do not pass any additional measures that would increase the density of the population in our small city. It is congested enough already and the mixed-use ordinance has the potential to make it even more difficult to get around.
Respectfully,
Sharon Dohm
Sent from Outlook
From: Dorothy Kamins
To: City Clerk
Cc: Darian Bojeaux
Subject: Mixed Use Ordinance:
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:10:48 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Council Members; City ClerK;
Please vote to keep the State of California density rules and regulations out of our City of Beverly Hills.
We DO NOT share your suggested proposals of higher heights, density allowance changes on private homes.
We DO NOT share your suggested proposals of lesser parking, lesser building standards, Personally I find it offensive that several voting council members do not even reside within the City and are making decisions that affect our local residents. Perhaps a better strategy may evolve when the present members are voted out of office in the very next election.
Dorothy Kamins
From: Patty Karp
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed use buildings
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:47:53 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
HELLO,
I LIVE IN BEVERLY HILLS.
I LOVE BEVERLY HILLS,
WE ALL CAN ENJOY A NATIONAL TREASURE, A TOP TOURIST SPOT, AND GREAT BEAUTY IN EVERY DIRECTION.
WE CANNOT DESTROY THIS !!
OUR LITTLE SPOT HERE IN AMERICA IS HISTORIC.
IT MUST BE PRESERVED FOR THE BEAUTY, FAME, & LIFESTYLE SO FAMOUS AROUND THE WORLD.
WE CANNOT BECOME ANOTHER SAN FRAN”SICKO” !!
PLEASE !
THANK YOU FOR READING THIS………..
AND PLEASE, PLEASE HELP !!!!
PK
From: Mirit
To: City Clerk
Subject: No to mixed use
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:22:41 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear City Council
I understand you are voting on the issue of mixed use buildings for our city and community. I and my entire family oppose the mixed use ordinance. It creates many problems not the least of which is unnecessary increased height and density and changes the fabric of the beautiful and historic community we live in and for which we pay high property taxes. Please put the interests of your constituents above all else.
Mirit Neman
From: Georgia Pine
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed use ordinance
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:42:38 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Coucilmembers,
Higher density, more parking problems, and more traffic is NOT in the best interest of the residents of Beverly Hills. Do not vote for this illxadvised ordinance that favors builders, speculators and contractors who keep trying to turn Beverly Hills into an ugly urban sprawled city. Fo not allow the unique s of Beverly Hills to be destroyed by greedy invaders. Vote down this ordinance,
Georgia Pine
Sent from my iPhone
.
1 Du
From: Phil Savenick
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:54 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: please read at the study session regarding Mixed Use CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I would like to voice my deep concerns and objections to the Mixed Use Ordinance under review. It will drastically and adversely affect the southern part of the city forever.
Our city cannot give up control of development to the State of California. The state’s RHNA goals are unrealistic and unenforceable. A small city like Beverly Hills is not prepared to add 10‐30% more residents with the accompanying needs for water, utilites, social and protective services.
Before the pandemic Wilshire Boulevard was in gridlock for 3‐4 hours a day. There was no easy access into or through Beverly Hills. Frustrated drivers made speeding through our residential streets a daily occurrence. We could no longer safely back out of our driveway during morning commute. A one lane street, Charleville became a de‐facto tributary of Wilshire. We have photos of emergency vehicles unable to get through Charleville gridlock.
Residents expect our city to be a haven from construction chaos, gridlock, overcrowding and crime. That is not the quality of life we have come to expect living in Beverly Hills.
Please reconsider the scope of this ordinance and go to back to the “case‐by‐case” review process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Phil Savenick
homeowner
From: jaleh shaheedy
To: City Clerk
Subject: Tall buildings
Date: Sunday, January 2, 2022 7:11:56 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
We do not want our city to be ruined by tall buildings under parking spaces and over populated.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Thomas A. White
To: City Clerk
Cc: Lourdes Sy-Rodriguez
Subject: Today"s City Council Study Session at 2:30 p.m. Agenda Item C-8 Periodic Review of Mixed Use Overlay Zone Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:08:19 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
TO BE READ ALOUD.
The Mixed Use Ordinance must be immediately repealed. Increases in population and construction density cause egregious, permanent damage to our community, and accomplish no legitimate public interest objective. The claim that homelessness exists because of insufficient housing, and that residents are obligated to sacrifice their property, environmental quality and other rights to artificially induce and subsidize affordable housing are deliberately and demonstrably false.
We can find solutions to the challenges and errors of the State Legislature by working together locally, and with other cities and organizations who have also identified this misappropriation and fraud for what it is.
Thomas White
From: Allyson Wittner
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed Use - Objection
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:19:40 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Council,
I object to the mixed-use zoning because of insufficient parking and increased traffic resulting from insufficient parking.
The mixed-use zoning does not provide for sufficient parking spaces.
The results:
(1) continuous circling of vehicles in residential neighborhoods looking for parking spaces; (2) increased number vehicles driving in, around and out of residential neighborhoods; (3) increased vehicle nuisances, including noise from vehicle exhausts/horns and speeding in residential neighborhoods;
(4) increased vehicle pollution in residential neighborhoods; (5) increased safety issues to pedestrians in residential neighborhoods; (6) congestion issues due to narrow streets in residential neighborhoods; (7) decreased aesthetics (and safety) due to parked vehicles lining the streets of residential neighborhoods; and, of course...
(8) resulting and significant decreased quality of life in their residential neighborhood The unanswered questions:
(1) where will Mixed Use guests and residents park on Olympic and Wilshire if traffic hours mandate prohibited parking 3-7 p.m. on weekdays?
(2) where will Mixed Use guests and residents park overnight and weekdays/weekends? (3) where will Mixed Use commercial guests park?
(4) where will the existing single family residences' guests park? (5) what will residential neighborhoods and safety look like with parked vehicles lining the streets and parking all day and overnight?
(6) will the residential neighborhoods in South East Beverly Hills be denied the benefits of the 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. permit parking, 2 hour parking limits and no overnight parking after 2:00 a.m.?
You must have solutions to all foreseeable problems and consequences necessary to protect quality of life for the Beverly Hills residents before you vote and you do not have those solutions as of yet.
Thank you,
Allyson Wittner
From: Lee Pasternak
To: City Clerk
Subject: Mixed Use C8
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:34:09 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
This should be read at Tuesday’s study session on this subject.
The extensive mixed use ordinance is very unpopular with residents because our city council turned over control of development along our major boulevards, to the State of California. Why would it ever be smart for the city to forfeit control of development in our city?
We do not want tall buildings or buildings with insufficient parking. We want to preserve the beauty of our low rise community and avoid creating gridlock on our streets. And we want to preserve the value of our properties and allow appreciation of our properties..
Please repeal the mixed use ordinance since it does not benefit the majority of Beverly Hills residents.
Lee Pasternak
Beverly Hills