WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
NOT READ INTO THE RECORD
To be read into the record at the Beverly Hills City Council meeting -January 18, 2022 Honorable Mayor Wunderlich, Vice-Mayor Bosse, and City CouncilmenI was a Health and Safety Commissioner from 2013 till 2020 and during the last few years of my service our commission focused primarily on fulfilling a promise to our residents to make Beverly Hills a healthy city. We recommended 4 ordinances that were adopted by the City Council. The 4th ordinance, the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products was precedent setting in the US and we had extensive meetings over months and heard input from residents and businesses. We crafted the ordinance to be mindful of our residents’ health and businesses' needs.
Our recommendation to City Council was the product of these meetings and our desire to make Beverly Hills the healthiest city in the US. To help businesses remain profitable as they adhered to the ordinance, we offered unlimited business consulting to help businesses rebalance their inventory and business models. We also crafted the ordinance to give a 2 year lead time to enactment, giving businesses ample notice of the date of the ordinance’s implementation. Additionally a hardship exemption process was included, whose intent was to allow businesses some additional limited time to complete bringing their businesses in line with the ordinance.
The applicant, 9460 Olympic Blvd attended many of the commission meetings, spoke at them and was fully aware of the proposed ordinance sent to City Council early in 2019 and passed by them in June 2019. The applicant had more than adequate time to adjust the modernization of his station, and to take advantage of the free unlimited business consulting to adhere to the ordinance. He made no attempt to align his business with the law, proceeded with his original modernization plans, and did not participate in a single session of free business advice. He did, though apply for a 20 year hardship exemption.
The intent of the hardship exemption was to give businesses a limited amount of extra time to complete the necessary changes to their inventory or business models to bring them in line with the ordinance. It was not meant to continue the business as it was pre-ordinance, disregarding the ordinance, for a generation.
The applicant originally requested a 20 year exemption and when his first review returned with a 2 year exemption, he was not satisfied and reapplied. The second review returned a 7 year exemption that is still inappropriate. There is absolutely no evidence that the applicant is making any attempt to make his business adhere to the ordinance or that it is moving in that direction. He expects to do business in the same way he did before the ordinance was passed-totally ignoring it. That never was the intent of the hardship exemption. Therefore I urge you to reject the exemption for this applicant.
Myra Demeter, Ph.D.