WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS READ INTO THE RECORD — Beverly Hills City Council, June 21, 2022

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS

READ INTO THE RECORD
From: Monty Abramov
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:48:48 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello, Mayor and Councilmembers.

I’m a real estate agent in Beverly Hills. This City has a higher concentration of homes older than 45 years in age than many other cities and due to the very long list of “Master Architects” under the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance, many of these homes are potentially eligible for listing.

This is why in 2015, the City adopted very strict standards for what homes were eligible. The City has lived by these standards and issued dozens of certificates based on its consistent interpretation.

Like the dozens of homes that preceded it through the City’s process, the home at 1001 North Roxbury is also ineligible. It is not an exceptional work or a remarkably superior example of architecture. Its architecture has also not been substantively discussed or photographed.

The Director and the City’s independent peer reviewer got it right when they reviewed the property the first time. Mark Rios’ major remodels and the press on them should not change these conclusions.

Thank you for your time. Please issue the certificate of ineligibility.

Monty Abramov

MARALEE BECK
Dear City Council,
This is a chance to rectify a situation before it is too late. The Certificate of Ineligibility for 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.

As an original Cultural Heritage Commissioner, I know the purpose – and purview -- of the CHC is to advise the Council about properties that are important in telling the story of Beverly Hills. A COI short-circuits that process, and should only be granted for properties that clearly have no such importance. Here, there is ample evidence.

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. It wasn’t – but 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 proper review by the Commission.

The CHC has not been given the chance to do their job: evaluate 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.

In passing the Historic Preservation Ordinance, we intended that all possible historic resources be considered by the Commission and 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,
Maralee Beck
From: Bari Milken
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 N. Roxbury
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:00:23 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I write regarding the application to confirm that the house at 1001 Roxbury is not eligible for listing under the City’s ordinance.

One of the hallmarks of this City is fairness and predictability. That is why the City created the certificate of ineligibility process. It was intended to give a property owner an answer within 30 days as to whether their property was eligible for listing under the City’s new, strict ordinance or not.

My friends, the Bakers, followed the City’s process to a tee. They submitted the expert report, they waited their time, and the City confirmed that the house was not eligible. That should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, it seems that some people are trying to use some articles about the home’s furnishings and interior design to argue that it is a superior architectural work. It does not matter that there may be a picture of the front door. The articles are not about the architecture and the house is not an remarkably superior example of architectural work.

This has dragged out the process for far longer than the Code allows and put a great burden on the Bakers.

We trust that you will agree the house is not eligible under the City’s clear standards and will confirm the certificate.

Sincerely,
Bari Milken Bernstein
Sent from my iPhone

BEVERLYHILLSHERITAGE
PO Box 7642, Beverly Hills, California 90212
www.beverlyhillsheritage.org
June 20, 2022
Re: Council Agenda Item E-2, Statement of BEVERLY HILLS HERITAGE, in Support of Revocation of the Certificate of Ineligibility Issued for 1001 North Roxbury Drive Completed in 1942, the Regency Revival home located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive is the single most character-defining residence in its historic Beverly Hills neighborhood. Made famous by Hollywood’s most beloved stars like Lucille Ball, Jack Benny, and Jimmy Stewart, North Roxbury Drive has been for decades one of the most iconic streets in the city and continues to garner the attention of tourists and locals alike.

The home’s iconic look was designed for Mildred Naylor by Carleton L. Burgess, a prominent builder of custom homes and commercial property in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, and Pacific Palisades. His name is included on the City’s list of master architects. His client roster reads like a Hollywood “Who’s who,” including Jerome Kern, Jack Benny, George Burns and Gracie Allen, George Raft, Gene Raymond, Lucille Ball, and Alfred Hitchcock.

The home was previously owned by a person of great importance, per Criterion B.4., for landmark designation, specifically, David Bohnett, founder of the first successful social media website, GeoCities, in 1994 (purchased by Yahoo! for $3.75 billion, in 1999). He is also a past chairman of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Association and currently a trustee of LACMA, amongst numerous other nationally prominent philanthropic pursuits and business ventures. Moreover, Mr. Bohnett’s foundation is headquartered in Beverly Hills (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohnett). He, along with his former partner, Tom Gregory, meticulously restored the residence in 2014, less than a decade ago. They upgraded the mechanical systems and discretely added modern amenities, maintaining the integrity of the exterior and interior. This is not a neglected property beyond saving.

Comprised of two full lots covering two acres of land, the stunning property features more than 20 majestic redwood and sycamore trees. The beauty of its expansive, park-like setting has been appreciated by both residents and visitors for 80 years. It is this historic character of Beverly Hills’ neighborhoods and iconic homes that makes the city so desirable and land so valuable. Losing this character will diminish the city’s storied past and, in turn, continued significance, reducing its value for everyone.

Recommendation of BEVERLY HILLS HERITAGE: When considering Item E-2, BEVERLY HILLS HERITAGE strongly urges the Council to vote in favor of revoking the certificate of ineligibility and, instead, find that 1001 North Roxbury Drive meets the criteria necessary to receive landmark status.

BEVERLY HILLS HERITAGE
ROBERT J. SWITZER
Vice President & Communications Director [email protected] Board of Directors (323) 394-1240
From: Leslie Bider
To: City Clerk
Cc: Lynn Bider
Subject: 1001 N. Roxbury Dr., Beverly Hills
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2022 5:01:25 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Mayor Bosse & Members of the City Council,
Our family have been proud Beverly Hills residents for more than twenty years and we live at from the subject property at 1001 N. Roxbury Dr.

We do not know the new owner, but we support their plan to replace the current residence with a new home. We know two of the property’s previous owners and we don’t believe that either considered the house to have historical significance.

We understand that the prominent architect Mark Rios who has done work on this house for three of the past owners has stated that the house was not architecturally significant and the articles that were published about it were not scholarly treatises but came from promotional work performed by his public relations agency.

Even more importantly, the current owner followed all of the City’s regulations to determine if the house had historical significance and every qualified expert agreed that it did not.

In 2015 when the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted, the Mayor at the time very specifically stated “one of the goals was to have predictability and for people to know in a reasonable time if their house is a potential landmark.” It is unfair to every Beverly Hills resident (and of course, particularly to us and all the other resident's on our street, for the City Council to arbitrarily decide that both the intent and the letter of an Ordinance should be ignored.

We urge you to follow the procedures in the Ordinance that was adopted in 2015 and issue the Certificate of Ineligibility.

Sincerely,
Lynn & Les Bider
Beverly Hills, CA. 90210

MARCY KELLY BRUBAKER
June 21, 2022
Beverly Hills City Council
455 North Roxbury Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
RE: Item E 2, the City Council Review of the Director of Community Development Issuance and Approval of a Certificate of Ineligibility for the Residence Located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

As I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting, I would like my letter read into the record during the June 21st City Council meeting.

The 1942 home at 1001 Roxbury Drive should be saved and the denial of eligibility reversed. If any property in Beverly Hills satisfies criteria for eligibility as a landmark, this is it. The property should not be issued a Certificate on Ineligibility.

The criteria Beverly Hills uses to establish landmark status is arbitrary. Does it matter if a famous person lived in a house? Why does the publication of a home carry weight? Is it reasonable to allow the destruction of an historic property without knowing what changes will be made? How is it that staff members without expertise in historic preservation can make decisions about eligibility while a Commission consisting of experts in the field are bypassed? All homes built from the founding of Beverly Hills through World War II should carry a unique historic status that requires special consideration by the city before any action can be taken. When original homes are demolished, our history is erased. This is happening too often and is diminishing our neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Marcy Kelly Brubaker
Beverly Hills, California 90210

From: Aileen Comora
To: City Clerk; Mark Odell
Subject: 1001 N Roxbury Drive
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2022 1:05:06 PM
Importance: High
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor Bosse and City Council Members –
I grew up in Beverly Hills. Explored the streets and homes that were a part of the history of Beverly Hills.

Over the years, I have watched the elegant homes be torn down and replaced by soul-less monsters mansions - or worse (the Jimmy Stewart estate in the 900 block of Roxbury, the two monstrosities at the corner of Alpine and Sunset).

We now have to fight to keep one of the last magnificent examples of what Beverly Hills estates used to be: 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

Please, we must keep this jewel as part of our City’s legacy. Designate this historic and do not issue a Certificate of Ineligibility.

I stand with the L.A Conservancy and all who cherish the history of our City’s architecture.

Thank you
Aileen Comora

THEAGENCY
Redefining real estate

AILEEN COMORA
Partner
t: 424 230 3746 | m: 310 569 7950
www.TheAgencyRE.com
DRE# 1002982
From: de Givenchy, Olivier
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:11:01 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

As some of you might already know we live in Beverly Hills and have known Eric and Nikki for years.

We take the liberty of writing again to you today to support there position concerning 1001 Roxbury Drive.

We understand that our friends followed the rules and the required process, and we would therefore expect the City Council to do the right thing here.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

NOT AN OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION OR VALUATION OF ANY TRANSACTION. Trade instructions will not be accepted through Electronic Mail (E-mail). For informational purposes only. This does not represent an official account of the holdings, balances, or transactions made in your account. Please refer to your monthly account statement for the official record of all of your account activities. Important risk considerations for certain investment products and asset classes can be found HERE.

This message is confidential and subject to terms at:
https://www.jpmorgan.com/emaildisclaimer including on confidential, privileged or legal entity information, malicious content and monitoring of electronic messages. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.

From: Michael Eisenberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 N Roxbury Certificate of Ineligibility
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:56:43 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Mayor Bosse & Members of the City Council
I have been a long time Beverly Hills resident and real estate broker for high-end Beverly Hills luxury properties for over 20 years.

As both a resident and Realtor, I am concerned that the City Council’s action in delaying a Certificate of Ineligibility on the property at 1001 N. Roxbury sets a dangerous precedent that could impact many Beverly Hills residential property owners.

My clients, both buyers and sellers, expect certainty in their real estate transactions. The City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance is very specific about how Certificates of Ineligibility are granted and the timeframe for a decision. I understand that the applicant fully complied with it.

Mayor Bosse, who was Mayor in 2015 when this Ordinance was enacted, made very strong statements supporting the timetable and procedures whereby the Certificates were to be awarded and the Council unanimously approved the Ordinance. I understand that the property owner meticulously abided by the Ordinance and that the City’s own historical consultant agreed with the property owner’s consultant that the residence has no historical significance according to the City’s guidelines. What does it say to buyers and sellers in the City if the Council can arbitrarily change the rules in the middle of the game.

I urge the City Council to remove the uncertainty about the process that the delay in issuing the Certificate of Ineligibility is causing.

Furthermore, there are hundreds of houses in Beverly Hills that have been the sites of parties with celebrities, politicians and other influential people, however that does not mean that the property is historically significant. Can anyone point to an event of cultural significance related to this house?
Although I have lived nearby this property for many years, I have no relationship with any of the property owners.

Michael Eisenberg
Director
Keller Williams Beverly Hills
439 N. Canon Drive Penthouse
Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210
Direct 310 748 5410
Office 310 432 6400
DRE 01234030
From: Russell Fogarty
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 3:41:10 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Honorable Mayor Bosse and Honorable Council Members
For more than 30 years my office has been on the mezzanine level of 332 N Rodeo Drive. The building was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is known in architectural books as Anderton Court.

I was co-owner of the building in 2004 when it was listed on the National Register and I have great respect for landmark properties.

I was introduced to the Bakers two years ago by mutual friends who have some of the most beautiful, classically designed homes in Los Angeles. I have found the Bakers to be cut from the same cloth as our mutual friends.

Exquisite taste, attention to detail, a vision of excellence, good neighbors and civic-minded. They also have a desire to raise their family in Beverly Hills and they are the kind of family Beverly Hills needs.

It is greatly appreciated when the city council prevents the destruction of a beautiful residence, when a less-thanbeautiful house is planned for the lot. There probably could have more of this in years past.

This is not the case here. The Bakers are planning to take down a beautiful old, non-historic facade and put up an even more beautiful new home that will increase property values. There is nothing architecturally significant about the current home that would give it landmark status and place it on the National Register.

For the city council to stop or delay the construction of the Baker's new home is not in the best interests of the city.

It is the opposite of what the city council should be doing, which is encouraging the Bakers to move to the city and build a beautiful new home on Roxbury Drive that may someday become an historic landmark.

Please issue the certificate.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Russell Fogarty
Kazanjian & Fogarty
332 N. Rodeo Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel: (310) 285-0046
20 June 2022
Mr Ryan Gohlich
Director of Community Development,
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Dr., 1st Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
SUBJECT: 1001 N. Roxbury
Dear Mr. Gohlich:

I have had an opportunity to review some of the materials relating to the residence located at 1001 N. Roxbury. As I understand from the information, the house was built in 1941 without an architect by builder, Carlton Burgess. Mr.

Burgess is not mentioned in any architectural publications as a “architect of any note,” which makes sense since he was not an architect. Nor is Mr. Burgess “an architect of widely recognized greatness in the field of architecture whose individual genius influenced his or her age,” which is the City’s definition of a “Master Architect.”
The house has been remodeled over the decades numerous times and most recently by Mark Rios. The articles I have seen all focus on the remodels by Mr.

Rios around 2010 to 2015. The articles do not focus at all on any issues relating to the actual architecture of the house, make no reference to Mr. Burgess, and are almost entirely focused on Mr. Rios remodel and the interiors with only a single passing image of the home’s façade.

As an artisan of specialty and historic finishes, in my view, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything architecturally remarkable about this house and the articles in no way can be considered a scholarly or substantive discussion of anything relating to the architecture, Mr. Burgess, or the merits of this house’s architecture.

Yours truly,
Darren Franks
President
2118 W sh re B vd. #150, Santa Mon ca, CA 90403
310-923-4242 DFAfin shes.com L c.#910940
June 21, 2022
Dear Mayor Bosse and Members of the City Council,
As I think all of you know, I was a member of the Planning Commission when the city originally enacted its Historic Preservation Ordinance back in 2012, and I was a member of the Cultural Heritage Commission when the city updated the Ordinance in 2015. I would like to offer my opinion on whether the publications of 1001 N. Roxbury before the Council satisfy the publication requirement in the definition of Exceptional Work contained in the Ordinance, so I’m submitting this email as my response.

First, it’s important to understand the genesis of the publication requirement, and how it was designed to specifically work hand‐in‐glove with the Certificate of Ineligibility program. The COI program was added in 2015 in response to resident concerns that the Ordinance was creating too much uncertainty over what they could or could not do with their property, as a quick and easy way to clear properties for redevelopment that no one ever considered important. To make it work quickly and easily in a field largely reliant on subjective determinations, we added an objective element to the definition of Exceptional Work – i.e., a requirement that a property be the subject of at least two publications (or one publication in the case of a monograph about an architect) to even be deemed potentially historic (and thus subject to review by the CHC and Council). The thinking was that if a property had been so published, that would be a good indicator people had considered the property important and thus potentially worth preserving, but if it had not been so published, then that would be a good indicator people had not viewed the property as important.

In crafting the publication requirement, however, we realized certain publications might not indicate a property was noteworthy at all. Specifically, the mere mention of a property in a comprehensive index of an architect’s life work would tell us nothing about its potential significance, nor would the fact someone with no understanding of architecture happened to discuss it or post a photo of it on a social media account. This is why we ultimately added two simple criteria for acceptable publications: 1) they had to either substantively discuss (i.e., not just mention) the property or contain a photograph of it; and 2) they had to be authored – meaning, written, edited, photographed, or published – by someone with a background in architectural design or history. We felt these two simple additions would give us more of an assurance that publication would roughly correlate to at least some noteworthiness, because otherwise someone with knowledge in the field would not have taken the time to single the property out for discussion or exhibition.

To be clear, we did not care about the academic quality of the publication – in fact, we specifically rejected such a criteria early on as being too rigorous. We also didn’t care whether the publication was primarily or exclusively about the protectable exterior (in fact, we specifically included trade magazines – Architectural Digest and its competitors were what we specifically had in mind – even though they were often more concerned with the interiors of properties. As I indicated above, the point of the publication requirement was NOT to help identify properties of high historic merit, but to help weed out at the administrative level properties with no real historic value whatsoever. That’s why the requirement is so rudimentary – if it’s a publication by anyone with architectural expertise that actually discusses a property, no matter how briefly, or contains a photograph of the property, no matter how small, it will satisfy the requirement. Indeed, we required two publications, not just one, because we set the quality bar so low when it came to what would be acceptable.

To layer other requirements on top of those rudimentary findings would not be what anyone intended, and could well cripple the historic preservation program. The truth is, there are not that many publications of even the most prominent houses in Beverly Hills, and to further require a publication to be authored by someone who has a degree in architecture, or appear in a scholarly treatise on architecture, or be primarily or exclusively concerned with the design of the exterior of the structure, would create such a high bar that we would almost certainly lose properties worth preserving without even so much as a discussion at the CHC or the Council.

With all of the above in mind, it’s my opinion that the publications before the Council all satisfy the Ordinance requirements. The Russian Architectural Digest article, the Luxe magazine article, the 1st Dibs online article, and the Neo‐Classical Villa Design coffee table book all photographically show the front of the house, while the The Iconic Interior: 1900 to the Present coffee table book substantively discusses the exterior of the house and photographically shows its front. Additionally, the Russian A.D. article, the Luxe article, and The Iconic Interior were all written and photographed by experienced architectural writers and photographers, and were prepared for publication by experienced architectural editors; the 1st Dibs article and Neo‐Classical Villa Design likewise appear to have been edited by people with experience in the field.

Staff has raised the question of whether the fact that the publications can all in some way, shape, or form be traced back to a press packet generated by the architect/designer of one of the renovations of the house means they should all be treated as a single publication repeated multiple times. In my opinion, each of the publications stands on its own for purposes of our Ordinance. First, each decision to publish was made independently of the others (and each publisher chose to edit the materials as they saw fit). Second, as I think Jan Ostashay will tell you, with literally thousands of buildings being built every year, it’s not uncommon for buildings to first come to the attention of architectural publishers via press materials generated by the architects of the buildings, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of the editors’ discretion in deciding which properties are significant enough to publish articles about. And third, while I understand three of the publications incorporate elements of the architect’s press packet, two others – the Luxe and 1st Dibs articles – are based on a completely separate site visit, so there are at least two publications no matter how you slice it.

Staff has also raised the fact that none of the publications mention Carlton Burgess by name. We never even considered including that as one of the criteria back in 2015 – as long as the publication substantively discussed or photographically depicted the property itself, that’s all we cared about.

Again, I can’t stress enough that we weren’t interested in requiring an in‐depth discussion of the property, only something more than a mere listing in an index.

Finally, and for the record, I take no position on whether 1001 Roxbury is actually worth preserving as an historical resource. I’m only saying that, in my opinion, the publications of the house are sufficient to warrant discussion of the house at the Cultural Heritage Commission level, with an opportunity for the community to give its full and complete input.

Noah Furie
From: Stephanie Gardner
To: [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Email for Sherman
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:54:43 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
From: Joshua Friedman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Jerald Friedman <[email protected]>
Subject: Email for Sherman
All you need to do is put it an email and send it in to: [email protected] Email subject line should be: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting It needs to be sent in by no later than 11am PT on Tuesday, June 21st.

Please then forward me a copy of what you send in, so we have it for our records and can make sure it is reflected accurately by the city.

Honorable City Council:

I have lived in this City for many years. I love it here. I love our neighborhoods our business districts and our great City services. I also love how residents have a voice in what the City does.

I recently became aware of the City’s review of the house at 1001 North Roxbury under the City’s historic ordinance. City staff already said that the house is not historic. I agree.

It is a fine house, but just because a house is old and some people think it looks nice does not make it historic. I understand that the City has strict standards for what it considers historic. The house does not meet them.

Please don’t burden the property with further process. City staff got it right when it found the house was not historic the first time it looked at this. Please find the same and issue the certificate of ineligibility.

Thank you for your time.

Sherman Gardner
Please accept my personally typed signature as I am unable to copy and sign. Thank you.

SHERMAN GARDNER - 6-20-2022
Sincerely,
Joshua P. Friedman, Esq.

Joshua P. Friedman and Associates
23679 Calabasas Road #377
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone (310) 278-8600
Facsimile (310) 388-5421
[email protected]
www.jpfassociates.com
*****************************************
The contents of this e-mail message, including any attachments, are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail was addressed. It contains information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be advised that any dissemination, distribution or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail [email protected] and contact the sender by reply e-mail. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation.

Thank you.

We are not tax experts and cannot and will not opine as to the tax consequences of this communication. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is no intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

From: Tom Gregory
To: City Clerk; Mark Odell
Subject: 1001 NORTH ROXBURY
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 1:57:15 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I request that you read this out at the city council meeting on June 21st.

It is in reference to 1001 North Roxbury Drive:

The first time I saw 1001 North Roxbury was in 1985 at 1:30Am. I just moved to LA. I was leaving the dinner shift as a waiter at JOE ALLEN’s on Third. A colleague asked if I could drop him off up on Benedict; he promised he would show me Lucille Ball’s home.

I marveled at a lit bedroom window. I imagined the superstar, insomniac, signing photos to fans, writing an autobiography, or just up late at night ruminating over a career that defined my first memories of television and the broader world beyond the simple living room I grew up in Camden NJ.

I turned to the other side of the street. I had never seen such a beautiful home. Set back on that storied street, it was the perfect ratio of home to (front) lawn. That arched upper window, those shutters, a little round window, a brick walk to that glamorous door. The home upstaged the world’s biggest star across the street.

I recall the project of restoring the house. Through a few remodels that clearly deviated from the original architecture, we reimagined the intent of its builder.

A team of designers turned our minds before Pearl Harbor. 1939 Hollywood and Joan Crawford were our inspiration. She was our image of an understated style that might build Roxbury.
1001 North Roxbury is what Hollywood’s first stars longed for. I can’t imagine tearing it down or altering it. This house is more than an expensive home on a marvelous lot. 1001 Roxbury is the thing that makes people work harder, strive tougher, and push further toward their dream. There has to be a place, a house, that stands as a monument to the best example of the pre-war Hollywood dream.

There is an appeal to whatever the flavor-of-the-day can imagine, but there has to be a magical place left on a wonderful street in an idyllic town that beckons people to push themselves toward all they can imagine. 1001 North Roxbury is a beacon.

Our respectful renovation was without concern for cost. The house is solid and well-executed. I just wish I still lived there.

From: stella hall
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mark Odell
Subject: Meeting June 21, 2022
Date: Sunday, June 19, 2022 6:46:55 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
As a preservation minded resident of Beverly Hills I would like to help preserve this elegant, historical home at 1001 N. Roxbury drive .

I strongly oppose the issuance of a certificate of ineligibility for this property.

Thank you,
Stella Hall
Sent from my iPad
From: Todd Hasson
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:19:27 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
If people want to change the City’s Culture Heritage Ordinance going forward to make it a lower hurdle then that is a debate that should be had going forward.

But you can’t change the rules after the fact and penalize these homeowners.

Confirm the Certificate.

Thank you.

Todd Hasson
From: Jerald Friedman
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:56:59 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Good Afternoon, Honorable Council:

I have known Eric Baker since he a teenager living in Beverly Hills and a good friend of my son, Joshua. They have remained friends for all these years. I have known Eric and Nikki for years and was so happy when they moved back to Southern California. I was even more thrilled when I learned that they were moving to Beverly Hills and planned to make our City home and raise their family here..

I have been following their saga with 1001 Roxbury and cannot believe how someone who does and meets all the requirements can go through this agony. I am dismayed that there seems to be more concern over a house’s architecture that no one ever thought was special until now than growing our community and welcoming families like the Baker’s into it. There is nothing wrong with the Bakers wanting to build a home of their own. We have all done it. They are meeting all city requirements. They bought the property on Roxbury to do it and were very careful to be sure theat they could do it there. That is why they hired experts to confirm the house did not meet the City’s high bar for what is historic. These experts and the City’s experts and the City’s commission agreed that the house was not historic.

To the dismay of my viewing the city council meetings you have ignored the commission and one or two councilpersons swayed the council to review and delay after delay in making a decision. Please do not change the rules after the decisions by the commission.

Let us please allow the Bakers to move forward with their plans of building a new family home for them and their parents in our lovely City
Please confirm that the house is exempt from the City’s ordinance and not eligible for listing as historic. I cannot believe in your long and timely delays the council has raised in protracting the approvals. Please let the Bakers proceed. Thank you
Jerald Friedman A resident for over 30 to 40 years.

From: Victor Kong
To: City Clerk; Mark Odell
Subject: WRITTEN COMMENT: Item E-2 Agenda Report, June 21 2022 Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:45:00 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Greetings,
I would like to submit the following written comment for the City Council Regular Meeting of June 21, 2022, regarding Agenda Item E-2:

Esteemed Council, Citizens,
When last I wrote in support of 1001 N Roxbury's landmark status, I likened the neglect of its preservation to the burning of a book. It would mean the loss of our cultural architectural institutions that would eradicate our city's history. Yet, at the end of that penultimate meeting, hope persevered and I was proud to stand with this council and our citizens.

Now we are once again at the precipice of doing what is easy or doing what is right, and again I must beseech our better natures. This fact is now plainly obvious: our cultural heritage commission, preservationists, and supporters have already won the court of public opinion. The popular vote stands with us - and the people have spoken.

In the past, I've made no secret of my disdain for this cartoonishly villainous attempt to conjure a chimerical Certificate of Ineligibility. I oppose this issuance of a Certificate of Ineligibility for 1001 N Roxbury Drive. In ascertaining the qualifications for landmark status, I've noted this uphill battle we face in matching its criteria. These are outdated odds, ones not present in the heritage charters of any other American city. To endow the goodwill of our posterity, antiquated guidelines must be amended to reflect the ongoing sincerity of our civic values. We must invest all our public sentiment, all our resources, our virtues - not inwards - but in each other, and our community. Our decisions must establish a positive moral precedent.

The world will little note or remember what we say here, but if we consecrate our city's heritage, through our institutions and our landmarks, we may do a great service not only today, but for generations to come. These past few months, we've seen our people come together to oppose a robber baron. These townsfolk make me proud to be a part of Beverly Hills.

Let's not burn another Library of Alexandria. If our preservation efforts succeed, then Beverly Hills will indeed be a wonderful life.

Thank you for your time.

Victor Kong
From: Alan J. Levine
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:15:22 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Members of the City Council:

My family has been residents of Beverly Hills since 1984. We have seen our City grow in ways we could not have imagined when we first moved here, and we have seen our City Council deal with issues far greater than the one currently being debated regarding 1001 Roxbury Drive.

As some of you may know, we live in a home that draws much attention for its design, its former occupants, and its location. We understand what the homeowners of 1001 Roxbury Drive must be going through when it comes to realizing their dreams of remodeling a home for their future enjoyment.

The approval process for obtaining building permits in the City are well intended to protect a number of important elements impacting neighbors and other residents of the City; however, the proposed application of the historic ordinance and the restrictions on the subject property are unreasonable and any “historical” protection on this property is totally unwarranted.

Next, some proponents of restricting changes to other properties might well be sought simply because of the celebrity status of a prior occupant of the property! That too would be an unreasonable application of the City’s historic ordinance and a waste of time for City officials to spend hours considering such nonsense.

Please immediately dismiss this or any other attempt to misuse the City’s historic ordinance to label the subject property “historic” when it does not otherwise meet the requirements, standards and other criteria of an historic home within the intent and purpose of the ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter and your service to our City.

Respectively, Judy and Alan Levine.
_______________________
ALAN J. LEVINE
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]
Phone:

NOTICE: This email, along with any attachments, is confidential and may be legally privileged; it is intended solely for use by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the addressee is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, (i) please notify me immediately by reply email, (ii) delete this message and any attachments from your system immediately, and do not copy, distribute or disseminate this email or attachments any further.

From: Richard Manion
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 North Roxbury Drive Hearing
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:28:48 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
City of Beverly Hills:

The City is holding a hearing on Tuesday June 21st to discuss whether 1001 North Roxbury Drive can be demolished by its owner or has historical significance meriting protection of its exterior architecture. I request that my opinion below be read into the record at the hearing.

As a local architect specializing for many decades in works inspired by classical and vernacular historical architecture, including renovation projects of period houses throughout Southern California and in the City of Beverly Hills, I believe that this residence is worthy of preservation. 1001 North Roxbury Drive is an eclectic architectural gem inspired by the Colonial Revival and Regency Revival periods. Elements of these architectural styles can be found in the building massing, window and door details, window bays, and superb brickwork and materials. Carlton Burgess, its builder/developer, was well-known in the area, having created Colonial Revival houses across the street for Jack Benny and Lucille Ball, the latter of which the City sadly permitted to be demolished prior to its current codes that enable recognition of architectural significance. Many prominent architectural works were created in the area and this manner by builder/developers, including Edward Paul Denzel, who later became a mayor of Beverly Hills. As with Denzel, Burgess was well known to play a major part the design process in the creation of his projects. Licensed architect or not, Burgess created significant residences of architectural character on a par with noted architects like Paul Williams and Herbert Reisenberg that should be preserved.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Manion, AIA
From: Alison Martino
To: City Clerk; Mark Odell
Subject: 1001 North Roxbury Drive Agenda Item: E 1
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:36:50 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am Alison Martino and I oppose the reissue of a Certificate of Ineligibility. I have posted four times about this issue and have been inundated with thousands of comments in support of this house being saved. People are outraged that the demolition of this house would even being considered. I run popular social media platforms about the history of Beverly Hills and surrounding areas. Many of my sentiments about the house have been published it various publications have been seen & documented in print. The community that I run which reaches over 1 million are completely disturbed and distressed. Many of their letters have been sent as well.

I grew up not far from Roxbury Drive. Since there are so many letters of outrage about this house possibly destroyed I feel the need to do the same. This is the most beloved house in Beverly Hills. It’s devastating to think we might lose a home this beautiful. It’s just astonishing that this great home would not be considered “historic”.

We NEED more appreciation of the finer things. Once the generation that remembers this type of architecture and appreciates it passes away more will be destroyed, very sad to call this progress. Roxbury Drive will never recover from the loss of this house. Nor will the entire city. Please do the right thing.

Alison Martino.

From: nahal rasmi
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury drive, June 21st city council meeting Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 5:13:33 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers:
1001 Roxbury is not a historic property. I reviewed the photospreads that some have said show the house is important or an exceptional work. All I learned by looking at the photos was the Mark Rios likes to use a lot of color in his interior design work and the property looks like it uses a lot of water for the grass. These articles are not scholarly works about the architecture. I don’t even know who built the home.

The articles say that the house was built in the Paul Williams-style.

Paul Williams was a truly great architect and left his mark on the City through his many homes of various designs and styles. So to say “Paul Williams-style” is a nothing. It tells you nothing about the house. Further, why are we talking about protecting a knock off. If you want to recognize Paul Williams, then look at homes he actually worked on not poor imitations.

The house is not eligible for listing.

Thank you for your time.

Nahal Rasmi
June 20, 2022
Beverly Hills City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
By Email: [email protected]
Re: 1001 N. Rexford Drive; Certificate of Ineligibility Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

As a professional architect, I recognize that historic preservation of architecturally valuable resources is exceedingly important. However, just because a home is old or possesses characteristics that some people may value today, does not mean that it is a historic resource worthy of preservation.

The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance seeks to recognize exceptional examples of architectural works. The home at 1001 N. Roxbury is not an exceptional example of architecture.

First, the home is not an “exceptional work” of a master architect. An “exceptional work” is defined to be a “remarkably superior example of an architectural work.” The City’s expert on historic issues called the house a “well-executed” and a “very good, classic example of Regency Revival architecture.” “Good” is not “remarkably superior.” Second, the home was not designed by an architect. Yes, we know Carleton Burgess is on the City’s list of “master architects,” but Carleton Burgess, the home’s builder, was not an architect.

He was a builder. It is unclear why a non-architect is included on a list when he was determined by the City’s own expert not worthy of being on the list.

Third, the home has not been recognized through awards, the press, or otherwise for its architecture. Two recent articles (2010 to 2015) reviewed the home’s recent interior renovation and featured numerous pictures of its redesigned interiors and furniture. The home’s architecture is not discussed nor is Mr. Burgess. This is not surprising as the home’s architecture is not noteworthy.

Recognizing architecturally important buildings is essential. It retains our connection to the past.

However, a disservice is done when local preservation ordinances are not focused on preserving those few truly historic buildings. This is not one of Beverly Hills’ great buildings.

City staff found that the home at 1001 N. Roxbury was not eligible for landmark status.

I respectfully request that the City Council affirm City staff’s findings.

J. Todd Riley, Architect
Lic # C-25098
From: Elham Samadi
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:12:23 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear all:

Thank you for your time. I’ll be very brief. The house at 1001 Roxbury is not historic. It does not satisfy the City’s criteria for what is historic.

The façade is pleasing, but looks like many, many other homes in our City. It is important to recognize our past, but it is also important not to allow historic preservation to be used improperly or to frustrate property rights.

The City’s experts looked at the house and found it should be exempted from listing. I agree and ask that the Council do the same.

Best regards,
Elham (Ellie) Samadi
From: Mary Steenburgen
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mark Odell
Subject: 1001 North Roxbury Drive
Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 10:17:44 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
The home at 1001 North Roxbury is one of the most charming historic gems in Los Angeles. It is facing possible demolition which would be yet another loss to a city that must come together to save its historic treasures before they are lost for good. The house is a cornerstone of its community. We urge all at the meeting on June 21, 2022 to consider the continuing loss of Los Angeles’s treasured homes and stop the demolition of this one, at 1001 North Roxbury Drive. Please read our letter at the meeting as we join all who hope for this historic home to be saved.

Sincerely,
Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson
From: Rich Waldow
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mark Odell; Minjee Hahm
Subject: Public comment for City Council meeting 6/21/22, agenda item E-2 Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:18:13 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable Mayor Bosse, Honorable Vice Mayor Dr. Gold, and Honorable Councilmembers:

Thank you in advance for considering these comments regarding agenda item E-2, involving 1001 North Roxbury Drive.

It was my great honor and privilege to serve the City as one of the original members of the Cultural Heritage Commission. My eight-year tenure included two terms as Chair and two terms as Vice Chair. It included the period of time during which the Commission majority recommended, and the Council enacted, the amendments to the original preservation ordinance that are now the focus of agenda item E-2.

I'm very familiar with the property located at 1001 North Roxbury Drive, which was designed by Carleton Burgess. (Incidentally, I seconded then-Commissioner Noah Furie's successful motion to add Mr. Burgess's name to the City's revised list of Master Architects in 2015.) I've also reviewed the publications regarding 1001 North Roxbury that are included in the record.

With this experience as background, and speaking now as a private citizen, it's my personal opinion that this property meets the criteria for landmark eligibility listed in section 10-3- 3212(B)(2) of the Municipal Code. In particular, I strongly believe that it qualifies as an "exceptional work" by a Master Architect, as that term is defined in section 10-3-3202, and that the publications regarding the home meet both the letter and the spirit of the definition contained in the ordinance. I think it's worth noting that the publications portion of section 10- 3-3202 is broad and inclusive; only the last sentence specifies certain publications that should not be considered. From what I can tell, the publications in the record do not fall under the exclusions.

Thank you for considering my comments and for your longstanding support of our City's vital preservation program.

Rich Waldow
From: Joan Sanders
To: City Clerk
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2022 8:10:15 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I moved to this City many years ago. I love it here. I love the old stately homes and my husband and I love seeing old and new families investing in our community by building new homes. Putting down roots. That’s what the Bakers want to do. We hope you will allow them to do so and will confirm that the house at 1001 Roxbury is not eligible for listing.

The City has clear, objective standards for what is and is not eligible for listing under the City’s ordinance. This house does not meet those standards.

The picture of Mark Rios’ extensive remodels for David Bohnette that have been repeated in free magazines, websites and self-published books are not about the homes architecture . They are about Mark Rios and his work.

The passing picture of the home’s front is an afterthought.

Please don’t allow a few loud voices to convince you that this house is historic in any way.

Please affirm Staff’s issuance of the certificate.

Joanie Wellisch
'
From: jackie winnick
To: City Clerk
Subject: 1001 Roxbury Drive, June 21, City Council Meeting Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:56:51 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Honorable Councilmembers,
My family and I are longtime residents of Beverly Hills. Both my husband and I grew up here and we are raising our family here in Beverly Hills, right around the corner from the Baker's property on Roxbury Drive.I have known the Baker family for several years. They are truly an asset to the city. They are thoughtful, honest, downto-earth people with great hearts and good intentions. They have returned to their hometown after living in New York and London and purchased a lovely piece of land to build a home for their family - a wonderful place for their children to grow up and space for their parents as they grow older. They chose Beverly Hills because they love the city and want to build a tasteful house that will fit seamlessly into the neighborhood.

The Bakers have followed your process to the letter and have been delayed for nearly a year now.I respectfully request that the Council affirms the Certificate of Ineligibility and let them move ahead. I have no doubt that the house they build will be one the city is proud of.

Sincerely,
Jackie Winnick
From: Jacob Helali
To: City Clerk
Subject: Message from a landlord
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:14:09 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Clerk,
We as Landlords are collecting pre-Covid rent that has not gone up in almost 3 years, yet our expenses have gone up 30%, 50% or even more not to mention the adjustable mortgage interest rate that started to go up periodically.

On the other hand, tenants who live in the city have seen their salaries, income go up significantly during this period. The question is why landlords should not be allowed a reasonable rent increase to offset their increased expenses for rentals rented after July 1, 2019.

Maintenance is our number one priority to keep our tenants safe, we cannot cut into that we need help from the city to survive. Please help!
Cordially, Jacob
From: Carlos Salazar (he/him)
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comment on City Council Meeting - June 21, 2022 Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:25:04 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I support rent stabilization and I appreciate the council's support for tenants in this time of high inflation and economic hardship due to the pandemic.

Thank you,
Carlos Salazar
Dan Yukelson
I am writing to you today as a nearly 50-year resident, and a rental housing provider in Beverly Hills.

For two-plus years, I’ve suffered financially due to the moratorium on rent increases. During this same time, costs of maintaining my property have skyrocketed. Today, gasoline is nearly $7 or more per gallon and inflation is over 8%. Additionally, my gardening cost doubled, water rates and penalties are more costly, insurance has increased approximately 15%, and all trades that service my building from plumbers to electricians have all increased labor rates and supply costs have all gone up.

I have sacrificed to make ends meet. Yet, during these 2 plus years, my tenants have gone unscathed having been fully employed, gone on vacations (They ask me to take in their packages when gone), bought new cars, and continue having food deliveries from local restaurants. Eating out is a luxury I enjoy too, but my wife and I have had to cut back.

My tenants’ lives have been unaffected by COVID while I’ve had to cut back. I earn far less annual income than my tenants yet, in effect, I’ve had to subsidize my renters' lifestyles. This is absurd.

Please, help me and other property owners in Beverly Hills and give us the allowable rent increase we are entitled to under the RSO, which YOU all created. While CPI is not a fair measure because none of its components measures rental housing costs, it is the measure you’ve agreed upon.

Don't pull the rug out from underneath us by changing the rules in the 9th inning when we badly need the runs to stay in the game - we've suffered long enough. Two plus years is a lot of time to go without being able to keep up with fast rising expenses. Please, do what’s fair and don't "cap" the increase at just 3.1%. Allow for CPI per the RSO.

If renters require financial help, create a lower allowable increase and provide rental assistance, but please do not continue protecting wealthy tenants. That’s just not fair to housing providers.

Beverly Hills City CouncilJune 21, 2022

Beverly Hills City Council
June 21, 2022