WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
NOT READ INTO THE RECORD
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: STEVE MAYER
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2022
RE: AGENDA ITEM E-1 (331 North Oakhurst): PUBLIC COMMENT
SUMMARY
On August 23rd, during the Appeal hearing regarding 331 North Oakhurst, one of the main points of contention was that the project was not code-compliant.
During the Appeal hearing, our consultant determined the project was not codecompliant. Staff concurred.
In light that those on Zoom or telephone were not able to offer rebuttal, due to technical difficulties, we ask that you consider continuing this agenda item in order to:
(1) Send out the plans to an impendent structural engineer such as Geokinetics to examine all aspects for code compliance
(2) After such an analysis, allow the Applicant to resubmit a fully compliant project to the Planning Commission. Then, the project finally returns to the Council
This is likely the process that will be taking place within a year from now anyway. We are asking that such work be done today.
As you may recall, Staff suggested that compliance could be achieved through “minor” adjustments.
Our consultant was not able to offer rebuttal to such an assertion.
Our consultant has since performed additional calculations, based upon the Applicant’s representation that only a change of “two feet” would be needed.
Such a change, as it turns out, is not “minor.”
It was discovered that a “two feet” change would result in either creating another aspect of non-compliance, or an automatic return to the Planning Commission.
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
Agenda Item E-1 (331 North Oakhurst)
October 10, 2022
If you chose not to pursue the preceding option, we ask that you consider changes of wording in the Resolution
BROWN ACT
While we could have filed Brown Act Cure & Correct / Cease & Desist Letter, we chose not to. (A draft of such a letter is contained in Exhibit A) During the August 23rd hearing, there were two specific violations. (1) Zoom and telephone participants were not afforded the opportunity to rebut during that portion of the hearing
In contrast, during the February 11th Planning Commission hearing, rebuttal was heard by Zoom and telephone participants.
(2) The public hearing was re-opened to the Applicant, but the Appellant was not afforded the same opportunity.
It should be noted that neither violation was willful nor intentional. Mistakes happen in all public hearings, and are usually inadvertent.
The objective of a Brown Act Cure & Correct / Cease & Desist Letter is to be certain that all are heard, subject to the individual municipalities’ own rules. To achieve such a goal, the remedy is for the public hearing is to be re-conducted, either in part or in whole.
In such instances of a re-conducted hearing, sometimes a municipality or agency changes its previously rendered decision, due to new information being received.
While we gave up certain rights by not filing a Brown Act Cure & Correct / Cease & Desist Letter, our evaluation was based upon the amount of time that would be required by a re-hearing compared to an alternative.
A full re-hearing would consume three to four hours of the Council’s time, and involve countless hours of preparation of Staff, the Applicant, and the Appellant.
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
Agenda Item E-1 (331 North Oakhurst)
October 10, 2022
With this Resolution agenda item, there is an opportunity to hear issues that were not heard during rebuttal and the non-reopening of the Public Hearing.
The crux of the matter is that our expert would have stated that the change of “two feet” was not “minor,” and could result in other areas of non-compliance.
Others would have spoken would have requested that the hearing be continued and that (1) the plans be reviewed by an independent structural engineer, and (2) then, thereafter, allowing the Applicant to resubmit to the Planning Commission with a fullycode compliant project.
In summary, we believe that the Council would have followed this approach, once it was explained, that a deciding body is supposed to approve the plans in front of them.
In the Planning, Architectural, and Design Review Commissions, it is the practice that such Commissions ask that requested modifications be resubmitted at a future meeting.
A recent example is a proposed project at 1510 Lexington the appeared on August 11th and will be heard again on Thursday, October 13th:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=&event id=4465&meta id=536944, with changes far less substantive than 331 North Oakhurst.
We believe that sending out the existing plans today to an independent structural engineer, identifying the areas needed for compliance. and then having the Applicant resubmitting a code compliant project to the Planning Commission, would be the most efficient use of the Council’s time.
Otherwise, there would be potentially several more Appeals, all focused on code compliance.
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
Agenda Item E-1 (331 North Oakhurst)
October 10, 2022
POTENTIAL RESOLUTION CHANGES
If our requested option is not pursued, we respectfully request changes to the Resolution.
Condition 3 – Construction Management and Parking Plan
For condition 3, it states: “…the Applicant shall prepare a construction management and parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.”
Due to the number of complaints that the neighborhood has had to file since 2017 to Building & Safety relative to 9171 West Third (the same owner of 331 North Oakhurst), as well as having experienced tremendous disruptions, we ask that we be involved from the beginning.
As a consequence, we ask that the following be added. “Prior to the decision of the Director of Community Development, that plan be submitted to the immediate neighbors and the interested parties list for review, comment, and suggestions.”
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT
BROWN ACT CURE AND CORRECT / CEASE AND DESIST LETTER
September 21, 2022
DRAFT - FOR DICUSSION PURPOSES ONLY - DRAFT
P.O. Box 16766
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
September 21, 2022
The Honorable Lili Bosse, Mayor
Honorable Councilmbers
City Council
City of Beverly Hills
445 North Rexford
Beverly Hills, Calfiornia 90212
RE: Brown Act Cure and Correct / Cease and Desist Letter Appeal Hearing – 331 North Oakhurst
August 23, 2022
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayorhair and Councilmembers:
Please permit this letter to call to your attention to two substantial violations of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, one which did not provide an opportunity for public rebuttal and the other of re-opening the Public Hearing, without permitting the Appellant to respond, as well as violating the Executive Order No. N-29-20.
The nature of the first violation is as follows:
During the meeting of August 23, 2022, a hearing took place regarding an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision on 331 North Oakhurst.
Rebuttal was not permitted from those who were participating by either Zoom or telephone.
In the two previous Planning Commission meetings for the same project, rebuttal was afforded by those participating by Zoom and telephone.
Public rebuttal is a central premise of the public hearing process in the City of Beverly Hills as memorialized in the Beverly Hills City Council Policy and Operations Manual.
The nature of the second violation is as follows:
DRAFT - FOR DICUSSION PURPOSES ONLY - DRAFT
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
September 21, 2022
During the “Councilmember Comments & Deliberations, the public hearing was re-opened to ask the Applicant a question.
The Appellant was not afforded the same opportunity to comment on the specific issue.
As a consequence, important information was not available to the Council.
Pursuant to that provision (Government Code Section 54960.1), it is demanded that the Beverly Hills City Council cure and correct the lack of action as follows:
(1) Schedule a brand, new Appeal Hearing, or
(2) As an alternative, re-open the Appeal hearing starting at the rebuttal stage
It should be noted that Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 (March 17, 2020) explicitly states:
“All state and local bodies are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the provisions of the Bagley-Keene Act and the Brown Act, and other applicable local laws regulating the conduct of public meetings, in order to maximize transparency and provide the public access to their meetings. (N-29-20, p. 4.)”
In the event it appears to you that the conduct of the City Council meeting specified herein did not amount to the taking of action, please call your attention to Section 54952.6, which defines “action taken” for the purposes of the Act expansively, i.e. as:
“… a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.”
DRAFT - FOR DICUSSION PURPOSES ONLY - DRAFT
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
September 21, 2022
In adopting the Brown Act, the Legislature declared that:
“ …the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.
It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” (Gov. Code, § 54950.) As provided by Section 54960.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case the court will be asked to order you to pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees in this matter, pursuant to Section 54960.5.
Sincerely,
Steve Mayer
cc Laurence Wiener
City Attorney
From: Pizik Barbara
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 331 N. OAKHURST
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:14:34 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I wish to comment about the resolution for 331 North Oakhurst.
I participated in the August 23rd City Council hearing.
But I was not permitted to rebut, as I had at previous Planning Commission hybrid meetings. The developer made statements about me that were wholly false. It was wrong that I was not able to rebut … much less ask for specific conditions.
During that hearing, the architectural expert helping the neighbors proved that the project is not code-compliant. Staff concurred.
I understand that the Council has a number of options tonight. I am in support of the project plans being sent to an outside expert. The outside expert would recommend what would be needed to create a code-compliant project. Then, the project could be redesigned and re-submitted to the Planning Commission.
This is a suitable alternative to an outright rejection of the project, and the developer having to try yet again.
If you choose not to follow this path. I wish that there be wording changes in the resolution:
Section 7 (9) – Abusive Behavior
To begin, Section 7(9) reads: “Any discussion about harassment or abusive behavior towards neighbors is irrelevant to the present matter and will not impact a decision on the merits.”
I ask that this paragraph be elimiated. No one should undergo what I have been through over 7 years. Keeping the paragraph encourages bad behavior and is in conflict to the City promotion of “kindness.”
Condition 3 – Construction Managemetn and Parking Plan
For condition 3, it states: “…the Applicant shall prepare a construction management and parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.” I ask that the following be added. “Prior to the decision of the Director of Community Development, that plan be submitted to the immediate neighbors for review, comment, and suggestions.”
Condition 16 – Underground Utilities
For condition 16, it appears to be obligatory to underground utilities. The Council condition reads: “The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets and alleys per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.” The General Plan, however, specifies that all overhead utilities should be underground, I ask that the phrase “if necessary” be eliminated, and that following be added at the end, “at no cost to neighboring properties.”
Condition 17 – Sewer Connection
For Condition 17, there is referenced that connection be made “through the existing connections available to the subject site.”
I ask that the phrase be added at the end, “at no cost to neighboring properties.” ========
In closing, since we, as neighbors, were able to prove that the project was not codecompliant, I ask that the appeal fee be returned.
BARBARA PIZIK
1 October 10, 2022
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90201
Regarding: Public Comment – Agenda Item E-1 (331 N Oakhurst) Attention Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members, In August, I was asked to review drawings submitted to the Beverly Hills City Planning Commission on February 10, 2022 for the proposed project at 331 N Oakhurst Drive. The link to such drawings is:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=8364&meta_id=504969 I discovered problems with the submitted plans regarding noted driveway slope and the access to the subterranean parking garage itself. At the August 23rd City Council hearing, I read a letter based on my findings (attached). The first slope segment was 14 % (not 10%) and the second slope segment was 18.4% (not 15%). In the City the maximum driveway slope is 16.67%; therefore slope was not code compliant.
At the hearing, I also questioned whether the floor to ceiling would be too low for cars to enter the garage on a curving and steep slope due to the small lot. Since the project cannot increase in height, then any accommodations to account for increased depth in structure would have to be factored.
In response, it was represented to the Council by the Planning department and the applicant/architect that code compliance of the driveway slope could be achieved through a “minor re-design.” The applicant/architect suggested that raising the garage floor “two feet” would solve the problem. However I knew that the “fix” was not simple. If you raise the both the first floor and garage floor by two feet then the floor to ceiling in the garage would be six feet, which is not to code. If you raised the ceiling of the garage to eight feet (floor to ceiling) then you eliminate the entire front yard lawn. The front yard would be all impervious concrete, no planting of any kind. This will have an impact on the required landscape. Example:
3 Confirmation of Turning Radius, especially larger vehicles Below are the proposed drawings for how the vehicles park with the current ramp configuration. The 15’ long Porsche shown in the drawing has tight turning within the small space. If the sloped ramp encroached any further into the garage then parking is more difficult. And what if they needed to park pick-up trucks or vehicles 18’ (or longer) length?
.
At the hearing, the Planning department stated that the drawings did not have structural review. Therefore, the issue with head clearance (as drawn on submitted plans) has not been reviewed. In response to the driveway
5 drawings are available from their structural engineering consultant, then the structural feasibility questions can be answered and confirmed by an independent (structural) engineer.
Thank you,
Stephanie Savage
Sent via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Item G-2 Oct 8, 2022
Dear City Council,
In case it comes up for debate again during the hearing on October 11th, please find below my thoughts as to why the words “willful” or “intentional” cannot be reinserted into the language of the Revocation Ordinance.
I am very concerned that some attendees at the Sunshine Task Force Revocation Ordinance subcommittee meeting wanted to include the words “willful” or “intentional”.
There is simply no way to prove this.
I have attended many City hearings where errors were pointed out and at no time did any Applicant admit to making them intentionally nor was there any reasonable way to prove that they did.
No matter the intention, the results are the same- the project possibly shouldn’t have been approved as presented and warrants another look.
The goal of this ordinance is to allow for an R-1 hearing to be revisited if it is found that a permit was issued because of false, misleading or missing information.
The current 14-day appeal window is simply not enough time for residents to reasonably analyze any issues that come to light in a hearing.
If I understood the folks who want the word intentionality in there correctly, they don’t want someone punished for making a mistake, which I am sympathetic to.
However, whether intentional or a genuine error, any adverse impacts would still need to be addressed to determine what mitigations might be required. Being able to claim something was a mistake, will give cover to each and every Applicant error, because now all someone has to do is to say “sorry, we made a mistake”, and it will essentially render the ordinance powerless.
In addition, the subcommittee component in the ordinance is essential as residents have brought up many serious issues to Staff, which were simply dismissed. It is only because we were able to bring some of these same issues to the City Council that we were able to get any relief.
It also should be noted that it was brought up in Sunshine by some legislative advocates that this ordinance is not needed because things would be caught by Code Enforcement.
This is not relevant, because the Applicant may very well be building correctly to comply with the terms of their R-1 permit. However, they might be building something that they never would have been granted in the first place had the Planning Commission had the full picture.
Yours Sincerely,
Debbie Weiss