WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
NOT READ INTO THE RECORD
From: Andrew Nachshon Dzedulionis
To: City Clerk
Subject: Parking, speed numbs on North Clark Drive/ Clifton Way Beverly Hills, CA90211 Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:13:28 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Beverly Hills city clerk ,
I hope that you’re doing well?
I’m watching BH city council forma meeting April 11,2022.
I live on . Lots of cars speeds on my street and Clifton Way.
We need speed bums. Drivers
barley and offend even don’t stop at the stop sing at the streets I mentioned crossing.
Other issues what is very disturbing and hazardous, when cars been parked on pedestrians walk way. I never have seen that before COVID but now I see toot daily and o don’t underhand joe the city allows that. I don’t see that happening in WeHo.
This parking of the cars should not be allowed. By one building I see 4 cars parked on a walk way.
The Marshall Goldman Beverly Hills
8825 Wilshire Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
United States
They always park trail or other car on the alley where it is forbidden to park. But they still do and it is very narrow to turn from the alley to N. Clark Dr. that should be addressed and changed. Why they are parking there where is not allowed ?
And I noticed that on seeping day parking reinforcement is not present almost every Tuesday on street sweeping time 9am-12 pm. Cars do park and the curb is not cleaned. That should be better reinforced.
One more question, can the city make the Clifton Way between N. Clark Dr. and Robertson Blvd my permit parking only.
Almost always we have cars parked for hours and we residence have no space to park new to our holes we live in.
Thank you so much for taking time to read my email and forward it to who ever is in charge and deals with the issues I have listed above.
Thank you very much.
Best regards
Andrew Dzedulionis
BH resident
From: Shelly Brin
To: City Clerk
Subject: URGENT : APRIL 12 EVICTION MORATORIUM MEETING
Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:56:58 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable members of Council,
I respectfully ask you to read and consider my letter and humble opinion during your up coming April 12 Moratorium meeting .
I am a law abiding , hard working , honest , small income property owner , small business owner in Beverly Hills since the mid 1980's .Over the last 37 years I have hardly taken more than 1 day off per week , very few vacations and have been 100% dedicated to running an honorable business without any family or other kind of help . After all the years of hard work , saving and being extremely frugal I managed to buy a small residential income property with a huge loan and all the regular expenses .
I would like to bring to your attention some facts and actual events that I have witnessed first hand or through other very reliable small mom and pop landlords in very similar position as me . For all of us this small investment property is all we have to show for a life times hard work and sacrifice , its our only source of income and retirement plan. Here is where we all feel that the laws have gone very wrong in such a one sided unfair direction, I will explain exactly why. The eviction moratorium as it stands now is effectively an assault on one segment of the population " small mom and pop landlords and property owners" . We all understood and agreed that in March 2020 we entered an unchartered territory and no one know were we were heading and how bad things would get . All work place suddenly shut down and stay home orders , possibility of a terrible contagious disease justified the eviction moratorium temporarily till a time that things are more clear. It made sense at the time that an average tenant who was in a one or two bedroom average apartment should not face eviction and homelessness in the face of an unknown phenomena and pandemic .
Fast forward 2 years we all know that after the largest inflow and infusion of cash by state and federal government in the form of unemployments benefits , California EDD payments in the tens of Billions with a B , PPP , grants , loans , sba and the tightest labor market in the last 40 years , employers desperate to find employees at any price and cost that 90+ % of all tenants or population as a whole is much better off financially today than spring of 2020 . This has resulted in a shopping frenzy by the same population whether it is cars, cloths , stocks , brands , watches , homes goods, real estate etc etc... causing huge shortages , price increases and inflation .
Covid , Omicran and rephrased as ENDEMIC not pandemic and it is effectively OVER , mask mandates are out even in LAUSD and public schools . We all know tens of people who contracted Covid in the last 12 months mostly less intrusive than a common cold.
Perhaps me and 70% of other small landlords like me have a single rental home or property .
May be we have a single home that is very nice and we rent it out to a potential renter who is very qualified , shows much stronger financials than us the property owners and has much more money in the bank than us . This is from actual events that have occurred to us .
How and in whose judgement is it justified or fair that such tenants take possession of our property with a single month deposit ONLY TO SELF CERTIFY COVID HARDSHIP AND
STOP PAYING RENT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE WHILE WE LOSE OUR PROPERTY AND 40 YEARS OF SWEAT AND TEARS TO FORECLOSURE AS OUR
MORTGAGES , TAX RETURNS , MAINTENANCE , UTILITIES ARE STILL DUE EVERY MONTH ????!!!! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS , IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL AND IT
IS CERTAINLY AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT ONE SINGLE
SEGMENT OF SOCIETY TO IN ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES HAND OVER THEIR PROPERTY AND INCOME TO ANOTHER SEGMENT . WHICH TENANT WHO HAS
NOT BEEN ABLE TO PAY RENT FOR TWO YEARS WILL BE ABLE TO PAY NOT ONLY THE FUTURE RENT AND THE PAST DUE RENT AT THE SAME TIME . WHEN
THE TIME COMES TO REPAY THEY WILL BE GONE AND DISAPPEAR LEAVING
THE POOR LANDLORDS WITH THE MOUNTAIN OF UNCOLLECTED RENT AND
THEIR OWN NEWLY ACQUIRED DEBRT THAT THE BANKS NOR THE
GOVERNMENT WILL FORGIVE ??
LANDLORDS HAVE BEEN HURT THE SAME IF NOT MORE THAN TENANTS SO WHERE IS OUR RIGHTS ??
HOW CAN A TENANT WHO MIGHT BE WORTH TENS OF MILLIONS RENT A $30000
PER MONT PROPERTY FROM A LANDLORD WHO IS IN DEBT AND ALREADY
UPSIDE DOWN ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH NO RESERVED AND THE
GOVERNMENT LEGALLY ALLOWS SUCH A TENANT TO STOP PAYING RENT FOR 2 YEARS AND THEN DISAPPEAR WHILE THE LANDLORD LOSES THEIR PROPERTY ?? IS THIS NOT AN ASSAULT ON PROPERTY OWNERS OR IN BETTER WORDS WEALTH DISTRIBUTION MADE LEGAL ?
IF A CITY OR COUNTY WANTS TO HELP THEY MUST MAKE PROPERTY OWNERS 100% WHOLE BY PAYING THEM EVERY CENT THEY ARE OWED WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS LAWSUITS WHICH ALREADY
PREVAILED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY LANDLORDS AND MANY THAT WERE FILED AGAINST LA COUNTY IN 2022 BUT I HOPE IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO THAT FAR IN OUR BELOVED BEVERLY HILLS .
WE MUST ACT WITH COMMON SENSE AND FARNESS. ANY EVICTION
MORATORIUM MUST BE LIMITED TO TENANTS WHO
1- PROVE AND SHOW THAT ARE WAY BELOW BEVERLY HILLS AREA ANNUAL INCOME
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
2- ARE IN A PROPERTY UNDER A CERTAIN MONTHLY RENT CAP LIKE FOR EXAMPLE $3000 PER MONTH.
HOW CAN A PREMEDITATING SERIAL FRAUDSTER BE ALLOWED TO RENT A
VERY EXPENSIVE PROPERTY AND SELF CERTIFY HARDSHIP AND LIVE WITHOUT PAYING RUNNING THE POOR OWNERS INTO BANKRUPTCY ??? 3- ANY EVICTION MORATORIUM SHOULD NOT COVER ANY NEW TENANT
TAKING POSSESSION AFTER THE STATE MORATORIUM ENDED OR AS OF APRIL 1, 2022 AND CAN NOT AFFECT ANY PROPERTY THAT RENTS OVER $5000-$6000 PER MONTH .
THIS IS $60000-$75000 PER YEAR . HOW SHOULD SUCH A TENANT WHO LATER CERTIFIES THEIR INCOME IS LESS THAT 8-% OF LOCAL AREA BE ALLOWED TO
RENT A PLACE THAT COSTS MORE THAN THAN THEIR ENTIRE YEARLY
INCOME ONLY WITH A PREMEDITATED PLAN TO NOT PAY RENT A MONTH AFTER MOVE IN ??
AS LA COUNTY'S KATHERINE BARTER PUT IT WHILE BEING THE ONLY SENSIBLE FAIR MINDED PERSON VOTING " THIS IS SIMPLY BAD POLICY
ENCOURAGING BAD PLAYERS TO NOT TAKE JOBS WHILE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE BAD LAWS HOPING TO LIVE FOR FREE. WHILE NOT PAYING RENT
AND COLLECTING UNWARRANTED UNEMPLOYMENT IN MANY CASES THE
VERY SAME TENANTS WHOM WE ALL KNOW AND HAVE DOCUMENTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN TAKE EXPENSIVE VACATIONS , LEASE $75000 LUXURY CARS
AND PARK IN THEIR FREE APARTMENTS AND PARKING WHILE THE
LANDLORDS ARE LOSING THEIR ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD , FAMILY AND
EVERYTHING THEY WORKED SO HARD FOR BY BEING GOOD LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS .
HOW IS THIS FAIR FOR ALL THE OTHER GOOD TENANTS WHO ARE DOING THE
RIGHT THING SUFFERING BUT PAYING THEIR SHARE WHILE THEIR NEIGHBOR
IS REFUSING TO GO TO WORK BECAUSE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS
SHOWN THEM A WAY TO LIVE WITHOUT PAYING RENT WHILE COLLECTING ASSISTANCE OF ALL KINDS???
IS THIS THE SOCIETY , CULTURE AND ATTITUDE THAT WE WE WANT OUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN TO TO LIVE IN ???
PLEASE HELP US . OUR LIVES ARE IN YOUR HANDS. ALL WE WANT IS FAIRNESS
AND TO BE ALLOWED PER THE CONSTITUTION TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE INCOME FROM OUR PROPERTY AND EARNINGS FROM OUR WORK AND LABOR.
Thank you so much for you time and attention to this very important matter .
Regards
SB
US-DOCS\131057551.2
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Moscow
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Shanghai
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
Milan
April 7, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 1001 N. Roxbury/Certificate of Ineligibility
Honorable Mayor Bosse, Vice Mayor Gold, and Councilmembers:
On March 12, 2022, the Council continued consideration of a request by Councilman Mirisch that the Council review the Certificate of Ineligibility for the residence located at 1001 N. Roxbury. Signed by the Director of Community Development and based on two expert reports, the Certificate of Ineligibility found that the property did not meet the City’s standards for possible designation as a historic property.
In connection with the Council discussion of the Mirisch motion, two Cultural Heritage Commissioners appeared at the March 12, 2022, hearing and argued that two specific “articles” (which were not presented at the Council meeting) were not considered by either Dr. Jerabek, the applicant’s historic consultant, or the City’s peer reviewer Ms. Ostashay. We respectfully submit that the two articles provide no evidence that the property is historic.
The first “article” was a 2015 photospread in Luxe of the home’s new interiors designed by Mark Rios. Set aside the quality of Luxe as a publication, this “article” does not, on its face, meet the Code’s requirements. The Luxe “article” is not “authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture.” In fact, there is no author at all. Thus, it fails the requirement as having been authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. Second, the “article” does not mention Carlton Burgess, the home’s builder. In fact, it mentions virtually nothing about the house’s purported historic qualities or its architecture. The “article” is focused on the then recent (not historic) interior design by Mark Rios, and the then property owner’s interior design goals.
The second “article,” if it can be called that, is a poor quality copy of a Russian photospread with largely the same pictures as the 2015 Luxe article, with a virtually unintelligible narrative in Russian. As translated by the City and our independent translator, the “article” contains numerous grammatical errors, misspellings, and unintelligible passages. As the City translator notes there are sentences that they have no idea what the language is: “This is Beverly Hills City Council
April 7, 2022
US-DOCS\131057551.2
not Russian but a similar language…Not sure which one.” This second “article” also does not meet the Code criteria.
Dr. Jerabek of ESA has now reviewed these two “articles” and confirmed that neither article qualifies the architecture as an “exceptional work,” as the Code defines it, because the residence is not “substantially discussed (i.e. not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g. a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture.” (Section 10-3-3202.) These two “articles” do not change Dr. Jerabek’s expert opinion that the property does not meet the City’s eligibility criteria.
The consideration of these two articles was the only issue to be considered by the Council with respect to this matter. The articles do not provide any evidence that the home is an “exceptional work,” as the City Code defines it, of any historic issue with respect to the property at 1001 N. Roxbury.
We respectfully request that the Council allow the decision and conclusion of the Community Development Director and the City’s experts to stand and that the Council not take up and not review the decision.
Sincerely,
George J. Mihlsten
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
cc: Mr. George Chavez
Mr. Ryan Gohlich
Lawrence S. Wiener, Esq.