WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
NOT READ INTO THE RECORD
Date: April 12, 2022 Page 1
Agenda Item: F-1
Speaker Caption Transcript
Mayor
Lili Bosse
We will go to item F1, to set the hearing date for the Appeal the Planning Commission's February 10, 2022 decision
conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow construction of a single-family residence with a basement on the multi-family residential property located at 331 North Oakhurst Drive and may we please have an oral report on this matter from I thought it was the Director Of Community Development, but looks like it might be Timmi.
City Planner
Timothea Tway
Timmie Tway, the City Planner, good evening, Council.
Iterations of the project at the site were considered between 2016 and 2018. A new – it was ultimately denied in 2018 and new development plan review application was filed in 2019. The Planning Commission considered this application for what is essentially single-family home on a small multi-family parcel and adopted a resolution approving the Development Plan Review.
The appeal was filed in a timely manner and the appeal fees were paid. The recommendation at this time is that the City Council set an appeal hearing date on Tuesday, may 17th, 2022. And at this time, the guidance not to have a substantive discussion about itself, but to set the date, at which time the project will be discussed.
Thank you.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Thank you very much. I will allow for anybody in the council chambers to be heard on this matter. I have one speaker slip from Mr. Steve Mayer.
Appellant
Steve Mayer
Thank you very much, Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and
Councilmembers, thank you for allowing me to speak. With me on my -- seated is Barbara the adjacent homeowner who is affected by the proposed development and on my left is Robert Block, who is one of the leaders of the neighborhood group.
We do not have a problem with the date, even though we
were not consulted.
Where there might be a potential problem is the Public
Records Request that was submitted earlier today. The Community Development staff might insist this is a delaying tactic and we're game playing. The request however is -- was submitted at this time, because we received information which arose over the past week, and after the release of the Agenda Report, which prompted questions from members of our neighborhood group.
The issue is can the city turn around the PRA request within Date: April 12, 2022 Page 2
Agenda Item: F-1
Speaker Caption Transcript
a reasonable time base without affecting other priorities? At the beginning of January, for example, I submitted a very simple PRA and it's yet to be received. It was something as simple as asking for all emails to, from, with the address -- the issue for this city is manpower
And in the City of Los Angeles and Metro I have made
similar requests, they are always fulfilled within statutory requirements, which I believe is effectively 24 days. It's not uncommon for the request to be fulfilled prior within a week or so.
And they also attempt to completely fulfill the request so that no matter how extensive the reason and the City of Los Angeles, each department has a public records coordinator and in this city, there's only one.
A similar PRA, which you see there was submitted in 2016 for the appeal and continually delayed for months until it time or finally came several days before the hearing only 20% of what was there.
On the front page of the supplement, most of the items can be fulfilled within a week. On the second page is more problematic and they are purposely segregated because they will take more time.
What we don't want is a last-minute data dump and the
reason this appeal was filed because of the way the constituents feel they were treated in the process. The most impacted person feels disenfranchised.
Robert complained about the physical appearance of 331
North Oakhurst was protecting a tenant in 2014 feels that the attitude of staff let him very frustrated. I feel the same way for both.
But in deference to the Public Records Manager and City Clerk's office, as well as the City Attorney's office, which I understand reviews each PRA, they only have so much time in the day. The issue is what the priority is of the council?
You only have so much staff.
Do you want to upset workflow or do you want a later date in June instead of May?
Thank you.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Thank you, Steve.
Robert Block. Welcome, Robert, nice to see you.
Date: April 12, 2022 Page 3
Agenda Item: F-1
Speaker Caption Transcript
Neighborhood Resident
Robert Block
Thank you, Mayor Bosse and Vice-Mayor Dr. Gold and
Honorable Council members. I was gratified to hear in the installation ceremony,
There was talk of “We The People.”
And there was a poet who talked about this, that the core of a city is its people.
So I'm anxious to get this hearing going, to give you an opportunity to live up to what you promised that day.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Thank you, Robert, please stay in the audience, in case -- you don't have to be that close. You can be if you would like, in case there's questions for you.
Do we have any emails to be read into the record and any phone or video?
City Clerk’s Office
Michelle Ramos-Vergara
No.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Are there any emails to be read into the record?
City Clerk’s Office
Michelle Ramos-Vergara
No.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Thank you very much.
So I will go to my colleagues for questions.
Councilmember Wunderlich please?
Councilmember
Robert Wunderlich
Can we address his question about how long it takes to
respond to public records request?
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Please do, because that would be my question.
Date: April 12, 2022 Page 4
Agenda Item: F-1
Speaker Caption Transcript
Community Development
Department Director
Ryan Gohlich
Good evening again.
Actually I have not seen Mr. Mayer's public records request, so I don't know what is included within it.
City Attorney
Larry Wiener
While Ryan is looking at that, we have staffing shortages in the City Clerk's office, so we're a little bit behind in fulfilling public records request. I don't know if Ryan will be able to fulfill this, but I know we're short.
Councilmember
John Mirisch
Can't we adjust the date?
City Attorney
Larry Wiener
Yes. I think as I heard from Mr. Mayer, he supported a later date. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I'm putting the words that were in your mouth. I believe he said we would be okay with a June date, if necessary.
Councilmember
John Mirisch
I thought the point is to be able to get the materials from the public records request to be able to digest it and then have the meeting.
Mayor
Lili Bosse
Correct.
Did you have an answer in?
Community Development
Department Director
Ryan Gohlich
So there's a number of items in this list here. I think the ones that are -- that could be fulfilled by the Community Development Department to turn those around as quickly as possible.
There's requests for police services and numerous emails and i can't speak on behalf of the Police Department and with respect to emails have to go through a vetting process with our City Attorney's office to make sure there's not attorney-client privilege material or other things included in there. So that could take some additional time.
The one thing I will note and I don't know it has any effect on timing? But the Appeal before the Council is a de novo hearing and you are considering the application brand-new. It's not based on in the necessarily things that happened in the past, but as a brandnew submittal to you.
MARALEE BECK
Dear City Council,
This is a chance to rectify a situation before it is too late. The Certificate of Ineligibility for the property at 1001 N. Roxbury was issued by the Director of Community Development based on a flawed historical assessment report – proven by the “late” discovery of publications – and should not be reissued now by the Council.
As one of the original Cultural Heritage Commissioners, I know the purpose – and purview -- of the Cultural Heritage Commission is to advise the Council about properties, residential and commercial, that are important in telling the story of Beverly Hills.
A Certificate of Ineligibility short-circuits that process, and should only be granted for properties that clearly have no such importance. Here, there is ample evidence – four independent publications that discuss and/or photographically depict the property, plus numerous letters from residents and preservationists – that demonstrates the potential historical significance of 1001 Roxbury.
A mistake that occurred early on at the beginning of the Commission is instructive: the demolition of the home of Ira Gershwin at 1021 N. Roxbury in 2013. A cursory study had not found the home to qualify as a work by a Master Architect on the city’s list. It wasn’t – but it had been remodeled by one, John Elgin Woolf. But that was only discovered AFTER the destruction, too late for us to have properly evaluated that element, and the City lost a potential historic gem. There was lamentation AFTER the fact, one that can be avoided here by a pause and a proper review by the Commission.
The CHC has not been given the chance to do their job: evaluation of the resource to see if it is meaningful. Let’s not make the same mistake we made with the Gershwin house!
Many would argue it is iconic. Star-seeking tourists, visitors and residents still flock to the 1000 block of North Roxbury, where the homes of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz still stand next to Jack Benny’s, next door to Peter Falk’s. They take pictures, then turn and photograph 1001, still beautiful in its exterior as the Golden Age of Hollywood.
The new owner is more than welcome to make as many changes and additions as he wants: the preservation ordinance may only require keeping the front façade as it is. A historic designation may come with incentives that may allow for “grandfathered” features that are not permissible in today’s codes. It is a positive to be designated, not a negative.
In passing the Historic Preservation Ordinance, we intended that all possible historic resources be considered by the Commission and the Council before being lost to the wrecking ball. You have the chance to give this building and part of the city’s long past a fair shot.
Respectfully submitted,
Maralee Beck
Sent by Donna Bernstein
From: Craig Corman
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Mark Odell <[email protected]>; Minjee Hahm <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Gohlich <[email protected]>
Subject: 1001 N. Roxbury
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
The world is watching!
https://news.yahoo.com/beverly-hills-9021-oh-planning-012444277.html Please distribute to the Council.
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start
Here!”
1 Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Director, Government Affairs
& External Relations
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 309
June 20, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Hon. Mayor Lili Bosse, and
the Members of the Beverly Hills City Council
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Report on Consumer Price Index (CPI) Data and the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RS0) Annual Rent Increase (Agenda Item F-2)
Dear Hon. Mayor Bosse and Members of the Beverly Hills City Council:
At tomorrow’s meeting, the City Council will receive a report on the May-to-May Consumer Price Index (CPI) and consider the maximum allowable rent increase for the period covering July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA or Association) urges the City Council to set the maximum allowable annual rent increases pursuant to the formula established under Chapter 5 and 6 of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) with limited rent increase reductions for qualified, low-income renters who remain financially impacted by COVID-19 and provide documentation to that effect.
We appreciate the City Council’s recent action ending the over two-year long rent increase freeze and allowing rental housing providers the ability to recoup the 2019-2020 rent increase. It is important to note, as stated in the City’s Staff report that “at this time the ordinance does not allow any other rent increases, which means that approximately 74% of the RSO units continue to be precluded from issuing any rent increases.” Accordingly, while the City’s rent increase freeze has expired, the vast majority of rental housing providers are still not permitted to issue any rent increase.
Rental housing providers are reeling from the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and related governmental mandates of the last several years, and with many small business “mom and pop” property owners already on the verge of selling or losing their property. This adverse financial situation has only been compounded by challenging rent collections during the past 2 plus years, and now runaway inflationary pressures effecting the whole economy that has caused costs for all types of goods and services to rapidly escalate under the current inflation rate which is at 8% or more. City Staff has proposed only a 3.1% rent increase, which is essentially based on what would have been permissible in 2019-2020, and it does not reflect the current financial dynamics. This proposal falls far short in helping small business rental property owners, who are the majority of
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start
Here!”
2 housing providers within the City, meet the enormous increases in operational and building costs.
We urge the City Council to replace the proposed 3.1% limitation, with equitable, targeted solutions that enable rental housing providers who have gone for the last several years with no rent increases to be allowed to issue increases by the maximum allowable rent increases based on the formula set forth in Chapter 5 and 6 of the RSO, and establish a process for low-income renters who remain financially impacted by COVID-19 and provide supporting documentation to that effect, to seek a rent increase reduction. Additionally, we are supportive of the City’s plan to establish a City funded Housing Assistance program to assist city renters and rental housing providers.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 309 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
From: Mark Elliot
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comment for formal item F2 REPORT ON CONSUMER PRICE INDEX Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:19:28 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor Bosse and members of the City Council:
I appreciate that Council heard my comments a couple of months ago wherein I suggested the city reach out to tenants and landlords about matters that affect us.
I received a mailed notice about the item before you tonight: a proposal to uniformly apply the 3.1% rent increase to all RSO units. I will largely limit my comments to this notice. It was titled, ’Notice of City Council Meeting Regarding CPI Index and Means Tested Housing Assistance Program.’
The notice likely raised two questions for most renting households: what is ‘CPI Index,’ what does it mean to me, and what is this about a means-tested assistance program? The notice didn’t explain either item.
The assistance program of course is not on tonight’s agenda. Someone tuning in tonight would not find it discussed because it was an information item in the afternoon session.
More important, this notice also should have explained that ‘CPI Index’ refers to the allowed 3.1% rent increase and a staff initiative that would expand the reach of the 3.1% increase to roughly four times as many households as before.
That intent wasn’t clear to me and I read the staff report several times. I was tripped-up due to the following sentence on page 3 of the staff report:
"This 3.1% increase could be applied uniformly to all RSO units (both Chapter 5 and Chapter 6), excluding units that previously received the increase in 2019/2020 as already detailed in the ordinance.” That exclusion clause is problematic since the intent of this initiative is to expand the increase to include ALL RSO units which would not exclude any unit.
But I’m quibbling about language.
The larger issue is that this notice didn’t provide enough context for the recipient to understand either referenced issue….much less suggest how it may be relevant to our lives. For example it doesn’t mention any expansion of the current rent increase.
I know the notice was mailed early before the agenda packet was compiled. So it provides only participation information — no link to relevant material. In the future can I suggest that this kind of notice provide a link to placeholder pages for both the city council agenda and the staff report?
In conclusion, I encourage rent stabilization staff to continue to reach out. But please put yourselves in the place of the public: make these notices understandable and relatable. This goes for all city notices. These notices shouldn't merely check a box; they should communicate. For example a brief paragraph on each the housing assistance program and the 'CPI Index’ would have gone a long way.
Thank you for taking my comment!
Mark Elliot
From: Dan Yukelson
To: lili Bosse; Julian Gold; Lester F; Wunderlich Robert Cc: Michelle Ramos-Vergara; Leidner-Peretz Danielle; WebCBH CITYMANAGER; City Clerk; Howard Fisher; Jimmy Killian; Roston Alissa; Elia Weinbach; drfinerman; Joanne Lockman Subject: Rent Increases - Please Help
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:31:56 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am writing to you as someone who has lived in Beverly Hills for nearly 50 years, and in my capacity as a rental housing provider in Beverly Hills.
I hope you can help the City's landlords tomorrow. As a landlord, I am suffering terribly having gone without being able to increase rent for more than 2-years. During this time, my costs have skyrocketed. While gasoline is now at nearly $7 or more per gallon and inflation is over 8%, gardening has doubled, insurance has increased around 15%, and all trades that service my building from plumbers to electricians to HVAC technicians have all increased their labor rates and supply costs have all gone up.
Orit and I have had to cut back on a lot of things to make ends meet. Yet, during the entire 2 plus years, my tenants have been gainfully employed, gone on vacations (I know because they ask me to take in their packages), bought new cars, and have continued food deliveries from various local restaurants.
The physician, tech company CEO and young actress have all done well during the pandemic, and continue to earn far more than I do. Yet, they have been protected by the City's moratorium for more than 2 years by prohibiting me from passing through a rent increase.
Why is this fair? It's simply not. Here I am, the landlord who earns far less annual income than the renters living in my building that has had to subsidize my renters' lifestyles. Not only is this ironic, it is absurd.
Please, help me and so many other property owners in Beverly Hills tomorrow night and give us the allowable rent increase we are entitled to under the ordinance YOU all created. I did not agree CPI is a fair measure of cost increases for housing (because not one component of CPI measures rental housing costs), but you would not consider any other measure and that is what you chose to use.
Don't pull the rug out from underneath us property owners by changing the rules in the 9th inning when we badly need the runs to stay in the game - we've suffered long enough while so many like Mark Elliot have taken advantage of the situation and gotten away with 18 months of free rent (per his landlord) at taxpayer expense. This fact alone sickens me.
Please, do the fair thing and don't "cap" increases at just 3.1% because many of us will not survive and many more will merely struggle to get by and then fail. I don't want to be forced to sell my property, but things are heading in that direction. If renters can show you they truly cannot afford the increase permitted by the RSO, then provide them with a different solution such as a reduced allowable increase and provide them with rental assistance, but please do not undertake a "blanket" approach and provide protections to everyone, even those that do not need or deserve it.
One last thing. Because I live in my building, I received a notice in the mail sent to the City's tenants informing them about Tuesday's meeting. However, as an owner, I did not receive a formal notice about the meeting. I find this further evidence of how unbalanced the ordinance you have created is and how unfairly the City treats those like me who took a risk by investing in the City to provide housing to others.