WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
READ INTO THE RECORD
1 Du
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Max Brockman
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:16 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: public comment ‐ special city council mtg item D‐9 > On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:56 PM, Max Brockman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Will this fancy new Real Time Watch Center include a gadget that measures how many innocent people are racially profiled by the Beverly Hills Police Department?
>
> Will it tabulate the demographic breakdown of those arrested by the BHPD’s Rodeo Drive Racial Profiling Taskforce? >
> If not, here is the data, according to BHPD records.
>
> How many white people did the BHPD’s Rodeo Drive Racial Profiling Taskforce arrest for committing petty ordinance violations in our business district? One. Two. Three.
>
> How many people of color did the BHPD’s Rodeo Drive Racial Profiling Taskforce arrest for committing petty ordinance violations in our business district? One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten. Eleven. Twelve. Thirteen.
Fourteen. Fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen. Eighteen. Nineteen. Twenty. Twenty‐one. Twenty‐two. Twenty‐three. Twenty‐ four. Twenty‐five. Twenty‐six. Twenty‐seven. Twenty‐eight. Twenty‐nine. Thirty. >
> Police reform now.
>
> Thirty‐one. Thirty‐two. Thirty‐three. Thirty‐four. Thirty‐five. Thirty‐six. Thirty‐seven. Thirty‐eight. Thirty‐nine. Forty.
Forty‐one. Forty‐two. Forty‐three. Forty‐four. Forty‐five. Forty‐six. Forty‐seven. >
> Police reform now.
>
> Forty‐eight. Forty‐nine. Fifty. Fifty‐one. Fifty‐two. Fifty‐three. Fifty‐four. Fifty‐five. Fifty‐six. Fifty‐seven. Fifty‐eight.
Fifty‐nine. Sixty. Sixty‐one. Sixty‐two.
>
> Police reform now.
>
> Sixty‐three. Sixty‐four. Sixty‐five. Sixty‐six. Sixty‐seven. Sixty‐eight. Sixty‐nine. Seventy. >
> Police reform now.
>
> Seventy‐one. Seventy‐two. Seventy‐three. Seventy‐four. Seventy‐five. Seventy‐six. Seventy‐seven. Seventy‐eight.
Seventy‐nine. Eighty.
>
> Police reform now.
>
> Eighty‐one. Eighty‐two. Eighty‐three. Eighty‐four. Eighty‐five. Eighty‐six. Eighty‐seven. >
> Police reform now.
From:
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Matter D4 - Email Comment (REVISED)
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 7:59:06 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
(Anonymously)
Good evening. I’ve lived in Beverly Hills for over 30 years, and been both a tenant and a landlord.
I think the City of Beverly Hills has done a remarkable job with the residential tenant evictions and protections during the pandemic. The proposed solutions on the table with respect to the city’s eviction protections are very sound and fair.
However, I would like to suggest one adjustment and consideration with respect to the eviction protection end date of May 31, 2022, currently being contemplated. This date only gives current tenants 60 days notice before the protections end and rent must be paid. I suggest revising this to June 31st, giving tenants 90 days notice instead of 60 days. June 31st is also consistent with the State's end date. The May 31st date has never been posted anywhere on the City’s website or officially passed, only discussed at City Hall.
It’s been a long challenging process, and I want everyone to succeed. I fear with a May 31st end date we will win the battle, but lose the war. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do.
Anonymously
From: Zackery Alexander Carrington
To: City Clerk
Subject: Rent Increases
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 7:00:26 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
> Please read
>
> Please do not allow any rent increases above 3.1 %.
>
> Making ends meet for many people is still a challenge after the pandemic. >
> Thank you.
From: Beth Sheby
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 5:41 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public comment on agenda item D-4
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please see updated date highlighted in yellow below. Thank you.
Dear Beverly Hills Mayor and City Council:
My Holocaust-surviving uncle owns a small 4-unit apartment building that I manage. Every dollar of his net proceeds pays for his health care. We raise this point to show that it is false for anyone to assert that the city's landlords are solely faceless, multinational corporations.
Below are two concerns related to the proposed amendment to Section 4 of Ordinance 20-O2818:
1. The period 6/1/2022 through 6/30/2023 is 13 months long. We respectfully request making this period a one-year interval ending 5/31/2023. If this change request is rejected, please provide an explanation as to why a 13-month window was enacted when the city and state have always permitted rent increases on an annual basis.
2. The rent increase moratorium was 3/15/2020 through 5/31/2022, but this amendment arbitrarily punishes those landlords who couldn't have raised rents until 7/1/2020. We respectfully request that this amendment be simplified and made fair by permitting a flat 3.1% rent increase for Section 4-6-3 rent increases postponed during the first year of the moratorium: 3/15/2020 through 3/14/2021.
The costs of repair and maintenance aren't getting any lower, and skyrocketing inflation disproportionately impacts mom-and-pop landlords. We need your help to prevent landlords such as my 95-year-old uncle from selling out to developers or multinationals.
Sincerely,
Beth Sheby
From: Alex Woodbury
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item 4D Rent Increases
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 6:48:01 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To be read tonight:
Please do not permit a total rent increase more than the proposed 3.10%. In the past discussions, staff and Council refer to the rent increases that were not permitted as a result of the pandemic as being deferred. However, I don't see where that was documented. My wife and I were furloughed and when we returned to work, did not received any of the missed salary. Why should landlords receive that type of a benefit? Please help my family survive.
Alex and Angelina Woodbury
1 Du
Subject: Upcoming City Council Review of Code Cleanup Ordinance From: Michael Cho (CNC properties) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 5:00 PM
To: Michael Dunn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Upcoming City Council Review of Code Cleanup Ordinance I support 100% for adding an exception to the height restriction on existing condos with roof top patios. Roof top patios need floor decks to prevent the potential damages that can be done by people walking and moving furniture (e.g. chair) to the roofing materials. As long as the parapet wall height (a new fence) is increased from inside for the security measure, 1‐2 inches shouldn’t be a major problem, but a major potential lawsuits between sellers and buyers and among the homeowners due to the reducing lifespan of the common area roofing. Our condo for an example, was designed to have exclusive and private area for top floor penthouse units. All top floor units have their own staircase going up directly to the roof from their unit in addition to the building having a separate common area elevator and stairwell for other uses. That being said the building was approved to have these area used separately as a rooftop patio by penthouse homeowners. However, due to the height restriction this became impossible to use, an area for exclusive use but unusable in reality.
Thank you
Best Regards,
Michael Cho, CLS, CSM, CPM®
CA DRE Lic # 01779527
2560 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 204
Los Angeles, CA 90006
213-788-3357 EXT. 201
213-788-3358 FAX
[email protected] . www.cnccre.com
Commercial Real Estate | Management & Leasing
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE and DISCLAIMER: This email message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately. Nothing in this communication should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. The recipients are advised that the sender and CNC Properties are not qualified to provide, and have not been contracted to provide, legal, financial, or tax advice, and that any such advice regarding any investment by the recipients must be obtained from the recipients’ attorney, accountant, or tax professional.
MICHAEL A. ENOMOTO, FAIA
LARRY SCHLOSSBERG, AIA, AICP, LEED AP BD+C
DEBRA GEROD, FAIA, LEED AP
ASHOK VANMALI, AIA
6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90048-5441 ‧ T 323 937-4270 ‧ F 323 937-6001 ‧ www.gruenassociates.com February 15, 2022
Chloe Chen, Planner
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
RE: Zone Text Amendment for Elevator Height Requirement Code Section 10-3-100 Subsection A.3 Dear Chloe,
Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-100 Subsection A.3 indicates that “the following elements of a building or structure shall not be considered when determining its height pursuant to this Subsection A:
Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than fifteen feet (15') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas, provided such lobby areas comply with the provisions of Subsection A.2 of the definition of Floor Area, and if such structure is used for no purpose other than providing the minimum space required for the elevators and their equipment and such lobby areas.” The 15’-0” max clearance, as required per the current code section 10-3-100 Subsection A.3 cannot be achieve with current elevator industries minimum height requirements. We request that the code be amended accordingly and be updated to reflect the clearances consistent with what is required by the elevator manufactures.
We have researched various elevator manufacturers and the minimum required traction elevator interior hoistway clearance, measured from the highest floor served, is between 15’-6” to 17’-9” for a 9’-0” cab. With 8” minimum for a hoistway beam and 12” minimum for roofing with a parapet, the elevator enclosure height is between 17’-2” to 19’-5” for a 9’-0” cab above the highest floor served.
Below are the current interior hoistway clearances required by the three major elevator manufacturers for a 9’-0” cab that was studied:
1. Otis –17’-9” to underside of roof structure from the last floor served.
2. Mitsubishi—16’-9” to underside of roof structure from last floor served.
3. Kone—17’-2” to underside of roof structure from last floor served.
Based on the above dimensions provided by the different manufacturers and to keep them competitive, we request that the elevator enclosure height per Section 10-3-100 Subsection A.3 be revised to 19’-5” (17’-9”+1’-8” ). This would work for any of the above manufacturers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
GRUENASSOCIATES
Ashok Vanmali, AIA
Partner